what grade of gas do you give to your fit?
#241
10-06-2010, 11:06 AM
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,428
With the older crown vic's yes. Certainly with the Fit 87 is perfectly acceptable. Today's engines that are tuned to a premium fuel will run perfectly well, with no damage to the engine, for extended periods on regular fuel. It's in the technology.
Questions of performance gains/losses are in a different category.
Questions of performance gains/losses are in a different category.
#242
10-06-2010, 11:58 AM
As far as the old crown vics I would say it's a timing adjustment.
If we're talking a NorthStar engine a few brown smoke WOT runs would do it...
Not worried 'bout premium anything with my Fit. The L15 set-up will take care of it all.
From what I see, and have always believed, prem fuel certainly can't hurt and might possibly improve performance but I'll really not 'see' that, but it might very well put the 'power' in the optimum for my daily driving needs.
This is the technology of today's engines.
Still working on the educational material recently brought forth.
Not that I would ever want to do that, however, all the ECU tweaking talk is informative to say the least - if not over my head.
#243
10-06-2010, 12:11 PM
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,428
You got me confused with someone else?
As far as the old crown vics I would say it's a timing adjustment.
If we're talking a NorthStar engine a few brown smoke WOT runs would do it...
Not worried 'bout premium anything with my Fit. The L15 set-up will take care of it all.
From what I see, and have always believed, prem fuel certainly can't hurt and might possibly improve performance but I'll really not 'see' that, but it might very well put the 'power' in the optimum for my daily driving needs.
This is the technology of today's engines.
Still working on the educational material recently brought forth.
Not that I would ever want to do that, however, all the ECU tweaking talk is informative to say the least - if not over my head.
As far as the old crown vics I would say it's a timing adjustment.
If we're talking a NorthStar engine a few brown smoke WOT runs would do it...
Not worried 'bout premium anything with my Fit. The L15 set-up will take care of it all.
From what I see, and have always believed, prem fuel certainly can't hurt and might possibly improve performance but I'll really not 'see' that, but it might very well put the 'power' in the optimum for my daily driving needs.
This is the technology of today's engines.
Still working on the educational material recently brought forth.
Not that I would ever want to do that, however, all the ECU tweaking talk is informative to say the least - if not over my head.
You are correct I have misattributed that post
My apologies
#244
10-11-2010, 12:38 AM
Wow!
I was wrong on a couple points and would like to come clean and hopefully clear some confusion (if only my own).
After reading conversations on a site the big-boys frequent I found that it's a common misconception that higher octane burns more slowly (slower flame front). The difference in burn rate between different octane isn't significant; the only difference is the knock resistance of the fuel. (nods to bullet: you were closer to "the truth" than I was, however higher octane gas doesn't burn "faster.") This makes my statement that the ideal timing is different for different fuels with different octane ratings wrong.
Also scratch (nods to scratch) posted the most relevant link with his hondata page showing the tables for knock retard (here it is again). At the time he posted this I was thinking it was either one curve or the other; I didn't read it well; but with my misconception that higher octane required different timing to produce the best power, I was drawn to the wrong conclusion.
But this better understanding doesn't lead me to change my opinion that a car designed for regular fuel will perform noticeably better on premium.
For the ECU to retard timing, and degrade power as a result, it has to detect knock.
Even if knock is detected, the ECU returns to normal timing for best power and efficiency.
I'd like to think that the Honda engineers, with clever combustion chamber design, cooling, and valve timing, have reduced the incidence of knock even while increasing the compression ratio of the engine. Also conditions conducive to knock have to exist (i.e. low RPM and more throttle; hot operating conditions, both ambient air temperatures and engine temp; heavy loading, pulling a trailer with your mother-in-law inside). Engine knock could occur even with higher octane fuel under these conditions (less likely) and the timing would be retarded.
The only question that remains is how quickly does the ECU return to "normal" instead of "retarded" timing? If it "takes several tanks" then once detecting knock, the performance is degraded for around a thousand miles. I don't think Honda would have designed their cars this way. Other posts on that site indicate the ECU advances timing each revolution back to normal until the next time knock is detected and the cycle begins again. Using this logic the retard would only be in effect for a few seconds, if that long.
So, unless you're driving at extremes, (autocrossing? lugging the engine in a misguided attempt to save gas?) there isn't an advantage to more octane in a car designed for regular gas. Under normal conditions the timing map delivers the same power whether the fuel is premium or regular. YMMV especially if you've modified your cars to use forced induction.
And no; premium fuel doesn't have more energy than regular. It has less due to the properties of the anti-knock compounds. But I think the difference in energy content is insignificant.
No; premium doesn't burn cleaner than regular. At least since new EPA regulations requiring low sulfur in all fuels, and high detergents after about 2004.
No; premium won't give you more MPG in a car that runs well on regular gas.
Sources:
Gasoline FAQ (note, this was written about 15 years ago, when sulfur and detergent requirements were less or non-existent. Regular today is not your dad's regular)
Engineering Tips , engine and fuel engineering forum (you need to register to search).
After reading conversations on a site the big-boys frequent I found that it's a common misconception that higher octane burns more slowly (slower flame front). The difference in burn rate between different octane isn't significant; the only difference is the knock resistance of the fuel. (nods to bullet: you were closer to "the truth" than I was, however higher octane gas doesn't burn "faster.") This makes my statement that the ideal timing is different for different fuels with different octane ratings wrong.
Also scratch (nods to scratch) posted the most relevant link with his hondata page showing the tables for knock retard (here it is again). At the time he posted this I was thinking it was either one curve or the other; I didn't read it well; but with my misconception that higher octane required different timing to produce the best power, I was drawn to the wrong conclusion.
But this better understanding doesn't lead me to change my opinion that a car designed for regular fuel will perform noticeably better on premium.
For the ECU to retard timing, and degrade power as a result, it has to detect knock.
Even if knock is detected, the ECU returns to normal timing for best power and efficiency.
I'd like to think that the Honda engineers, with clever combustion chamber design, cooling, and valve timing, have reduced the incidence of knock even while increasing the compression ratio of the engine. Also conditions conducive to knock have to exist (i.e. low RPM and more throttle; hot operating conditions, both ambient air temperatures and engine temp; heavy loading, pulling a trailer with your mother-in-law inside). Engine knock could occur even with higher octane fuel under these conditions (less likely) and the timing would be retarded.
The only question that remains is how quickly does the ECU return to "normal" instead of "retarded" timing? If it "takes several tanks" then once detecting knock, the performance is degraded for around a thousand miles. I don't think Honda would have designed their cars this way. Other posts on that site indicate the ECU advances timing each revolution back to normal until the next time knock is detected and the cycle begins again. Using this logic the retard would only be in effect for a few seconds, if that long.
So, unless you're driving at extremes, (autocrossing? lugging the engine in a misguided attempt to save gas?) there isn't an advantage to more octane in a car designed for regular gas. Under normal conditions the timing map delivers the same power whether the fuel is premium or regular. YMMV especially if you've modified your cars to use forced induction.
And no; premium fuel doesn't have more energy than regular. It has less due to the properties of the anti-knock compounds. But I think the difference in energy content is insignificant.
No; premium doesn't burn cleaner than regular. At least since new EPA regulations requiring low sulfur in all fuels, and high detergents after about 2004.
No; premium won't give you more MPG in a car that runs well on regular gas.
Sources:
Gasoline FAQ (note, this was written about 15 years ago, when sulfur and detergent requirements were less or non-existent. Regular today is not your dad's regular)
Engineering Tips , engine and fuel engineering forum (you need to register to search).
Secondly, when I started catching up on this thread today, and saw your post, the next thing I thought was, "I really hope they don't start jumping on him for doing the right thing." Then, I was appalled when I saw that a few did just that. (You know who you are.) The fact is, now that we're all closer to the same wavelength, we should be able to advance the discussion and find out exactly what's going on in our engines. Petty bashing just stalls progress.
Now, then, I agree with you that a car designed to run best on 87 will likely not run any differently--at least, not better--on 93, barring things like excessive carbon deposits. However, the high compression ratio of the L15A (10.4:1) leads me to believe that it was designed with higher-octane fuels in mind. The fact that it was initially brought to North America almost as an afterthought would seem to bear that out (Honda was getting beat up by Scions, Nissan Versas, and Hyundai/Kia, and brought the Fit over almost as an emergency measure in my opinion).
Anyway, the whole issue as I've been able to see it has been:
1. Is there a knock sensor in the L15A? (I strongly believe so.)
2. Is there any mechanism in the ECU that:
a) detects knock and retards timing accordingly;
b) actively advances timing until knock is detected, then dials back a bit, then repeats the process? (My butt dyno says so, and my ScanGauge seems to confirm.)
If so, then the question is simply: How high will the ECU go? In other words, what's the maximum octane that gets any little benefit? In order to answer that question definitively, we would have to get an answer from the Honda engineers who actually did the initial ECU calibration. Unless and until that happens, we have to experiment.
I posit that it's something like 95-99, since that's what's relatively common in Asia and Europe. Therefore, using 93 as compared to 87 should give some benefit, although I don't think the difference is objectively worthwhile.
I do think that some who notice the difference will want that little extra enough to pay more for it. I am one of them.
It's worth noting that (and I'm having a hard time finding this right now) when Honda announced the Fit's arrival in North America, they bragged about the work they had done on the coolant channels in the head/block to keep the cylinders cool in order to reduce knock. That tells me that otherwise, 87 octane couldn't run well in the L15A at all. In my opinion, it's extremely unlikely that 87 can give you optimum performance in this engine.
Finally, WOW! That turborick.com FAQ is impressive. I recommend it to everyone on this thread. The part on oxygenates explained a lot to me. The fact that ethanol blends (as of when the article was written) don't have to meet the same strict standards as other gasolines might explain why gas mileage went down in the first years after E10's introduction (section 4.10.1). Sections 6.13, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.17 are especially pertinent to this discussion.
Section 7.1 claims that, for a typical carburetted engine without engine management, a 10:1 compression ratio requires 100 octane fuel.
I contend that this is not the case with the Fit, since--obviously--every Fit owner in North America is running 93 or less, and doing okay. However, this seems to agree with the notion that the L15A would run somewhat better with higher-octane fuels.
I think Honda probably listed 87 octane as the minimum for the Fit in order to position it as an economy car in North America. Even so, the fact the manual says lower-octane fuel may damage the engine tells me that even 87 is not optimum. I mean, have you seen a phrase like that in a Chevy Suburban owner's manual? That's quite unusual.
I'm now reading sections 7.2 through 7.4 of your link, which deal with AFR's, ignition timing, and engine management systems. Good stuff.
Man, that's a long post.
#245
10-11-2010, 01:49 AM
For the ECU to retard timing, and degrade power as a result, it has to detect knock.
Even if knock is detected, the ECU returns to normal timing for best power and efficiency.
I'd like to think that the Honda engineers, with clever combustion chamber design, cooling, and valve timing, have reduced the incidence of knock even while increasing the compression ratio of the engine. Also conditions conducive to knock have to exist (i.e. low RPM and more throttle; hot operating conditions, both ambient air temperatures and engine temp; heavy loading, pulling a trailer with your mother-in-law inside). Engine knock could occur even with higher octane fuel under these conditions (less likely) and the timing would be retarded.
The only question that remains is how quickly does the ECU return to "normal" instead of "retarded" timing? If it "takes several tanks" then once detecting knock, the performance is degraded for around a thousand miles. I don't think Honda would have designed their cars this way. Other posts on that site indicate the ECU advances timing each revolution back to normal until the next time knock is detected and the cycle begins again. Using this logic the retard would only be in effect for a few seconds, if that long.
So, unless you're driving at extremes, (autocrossing? lugging the engine in a misguided attempt to save gas?) there isn't an advantage to more octane in a car designed for regular gas. Under normal conditions the timing map delivers the same power whether the fuel is premium or regular. YMMV especially if you've modified your cars to use forced induction.
And no; premium fuel doesn't have more energy than regular. It has less due to the properties of the anti-knock compounds. But I think the difference in energy content is insignificant.
No; premium doesn't burn cleaner than regular. At least since new EPA regulations requiring low sulfur in all fuels, and high detergents after about 2004.
No; premium won't give you more MPG in a car that runs well on regular gas.
Even if knock is detected, the ECU returns to normal timing for best power and efficiency.
I'd like to think that the Honda engineers, with clever combustion chamber design, cooling, and valve timing, have reduced the incidence of knock even while increasing the compression ratio of the engine. Also conditions conducive to knock have to exist (i.e. low RPM and more throttle; hot operating conditions, both ambient air temperatures and engine temp; heavy loading, pulling a trailer with your mother-in-law inside). Engine knock could occur even with higher octane fuel under these conditions (less likely) and the timing would be retarded.
The only question that remains is how quickly does the ECU return to "normal" instead of "retarded" timing? If it "takes several tanks" then once detecting knock, the performance is degraded for around a thousand miles. I don't think Honda would have designed their cars this way. Other posts on that site indicate the ECU advances timing each revolution back to normal until the next time knock is detected and the cycle begins again. Using this logic the retard would only be in effect for a few seconds, if that long.
So, unless you're driving at extremes, (autocrossing? lugging the engine in a misguided attempt to save gas?) there isn't an advantage to more octane in a car designed for regular gas. Under normal conditions the timing map delivers the same power whether the fuel is premium or regular. YMMV especially if you've modified your cars to use forced induction.
And no; premium fuel doesn't have more energy than regular. It has less due to the properties of the anti-knock compounds. But I think the difference in energy content is insignificant.
No; premium doesn't burn cleaner than regular. At least since new EPA regulations requiring low sulfur in all fuels, and high detergents after about 2004.
No; premium won't give you more MPG in a car that runs well on regular gas.
That said, different climates and driving styles will increase or decrease propensity to knocking, so I wouldn't be surprised if some FitFreaks don't notice any difference at all between fuel grades.
Incidentally, when I'm hypermiling (which is almost all the time), I will frequently lug the engine a little bit in order to stay in the highest gear possible at lower speeds. It is under these conditions (medium to high load, low RPM) that I notice the most difference between 87 and 93. I have the same experience accelerating at WOT.
For that reason, I find it easier to stay near my top MPG with 93. However, let me restate that I cannot think of any time I actually got better mileage over an entire tank with 93 than with 87. It might be possible, though.
EDIT: I forgot to address timing. I think the ECU adjusts timing over a period of seconds at the most, so that (for instance) if you're running 87, timing is retarded only during the time conditions make it more prone to knock, like the scenarios you mentioned. Of course, since hot weather is one of those conditions, that might mean performance suffers during one's entire commute.
Last edited by Scratch&Dent; 10-11-2010 at 01:55 AM.
#246
10-12-2010, 01:00 PM
I think the only way to advance the thread outside of chest beating and technobabble is to have someone's MT Fit dyno'd on premium, then after a couple tanks of regular dyno'd again and compare the results.
Dunno how far from Atlanta you are, but here's a reputable shop: Dynolab. They're in Marietta just off I75 and the south loop.
I'm tempted to pay for a portion of it ($65 for a standard power run, $50 thursday night special: times two). My car's an AT; it won't dyno accurately. Let me know if you're interested in doing yours. (no modding/demodding between runs.). You could tell them you're doing an article for a Honda blog if it embarrasses you...
Of course it's a 1st gen, so there's still wiggle room on the GE8s...
Dunno how far from Atlanta you are, but here's a reputable shop: Dynolab. They're in Marietta just off I75 and the south loop.
I'm tempted to pay for a portion of it ($65 for a standard power run, $50 thursday night special: times two). My car's an AT; it won't dyno accurately. Let me know if you're interested in doing yours. (no modding/demodding between runs.
). You could tell them you're doing an article for a Honda blog if it embarrasses you...Of course it's a 1st gen, so there's still wiggle room on the GE8s...
#247
10-12-2010, 11:00 PM
Nice find. I'm surprised at the Thursday special.
That's about an hour and a half away from me, so not too far, but I'd have to schedule at least half a day for it.
Also, they say AT's can be tested, but they say "some finessing is required. It's pretty simple."
I'm actually quite curious about this, but the one thing that concerns me more than anything is that their dyno chart screenshots start at 2500 RPM. I'm not sure there's any real difference between grades that high. I only notice anything down below 2000. Looks like a phone call is in order.
And no, I'm not that embarrassed
That's about an hour and a half away from me, so not too far, but I'd have to schedule at least half a day for it.
Also, they say AT's can be tested, but they say "some finessing is required. It's pretty simple."
I'm actually quite curious about this, but the one thing that concerns me more than anything is that their dyno chart screenshots start at 2500 RPM. I'm not sure there's any real difference between grades that high. I only notice anything down below 2000. Looks like a phone call is in order.
And no, I'm not that embarrassed
#248
10-13-2010, 10:02 AM
Nice find. I'm surprised at the Thursday special.
That's about an hour and a half away from me, so not too far, but I'd have to schedule at least half a day for it.
Also, they say AT's can be tested, but they say "some finessing is required. It's pretty simple."
I'm actually quite curious about this, but the one thing that concerns me more than anything is that their dyno chart screenshots start at 2500 RPM. I'm not sure there's any real difference between grades that high. I only notice anything down below 2000. Looks like a phone call is in order.
And no, I'm not that embarrassed
That's about an hour and a half away from me, so not too far, but I'd have to schedule at least half a day for it.
Also, they say AT's can be tested, but they say "some finessing is required. It's pretty simple."
I'm actually quite curious about this, but the one thing that concerns me more than anything is that their dyno chart screenshots start at 2500 RPM. I'm not sure there's any real difference between grades that high. I only notice anything down below 2000. Looks like a phone call is in order.
And no, I'm not that embarrassed
I bet their software can be modified to see the full RPM range. Less than 2500 probably isn't interesting to most as this isn't where the most power is generated. Maybe they don't load it at lower RPM to avoid damaging the engine and the effect of the dyno may be to force it into ignition retard regardless of the octane level. Might be worth emailing them to find out. I'm not sure in the grand scheme of premium vs regular how significant power from 500-2500 would be; the Fit is geared low to take advantage of higher RPM, but I understand why you would want to.
Shrug, if you're interested I am. 90 minutes is my daily commute. Sounds like you're in Blue Ridge.
Last edited by Steve244; 10-13-2010 at 11:15 AM.
#249
10-22-2010, 03:59 PM
Ok.
Not that I think a lot of people are going to give a flying Fit....but I have to admit, I'm changing my opinion and my protocal.
After I purchased my Fit, I originally tested a few tanks of premium and a few tanks of regular..at top tier stations. I went for the first few months with regular. Then on a whim, I went back to premium...now after about a month? I'm NOT going back to regular.
Ok I'll also admit this is not based on any tangible scientific testing. This is purely empiracle feedback. BUT...I'm not going back because for the past month The Fit has run IMO so much better. Much quieter at idle, stronger acceleration that seems "smoother" and sounds less strained. Also the MPG meter is showing 1-2 miles per gallon better than it ever did on regular.
Imagined or not? These benefits are worth it to me. I'm saying now, I do notice a difference, and since the increase in MPG's almost offsets the increase in tank fill cost, I don't see much advantage to just going back to regular. When I ran regular, I got much louder idles, and a metalic ting when accelerating...all that is MUCH better on higher octane. Infact, although acceptable on regular...this is so much better that I'm feeling excited about it...this IS now the automobile I was hoping I purchased when I bought it.
I've followed this thread enough to know EVERYONE has their personal beliefs and protocal. Don't bother to tell me I'm wasting money...there is no difference..Okay...do what you want to do...all I'm saying is to me? I've noticed what I perceive as a pretty significant improvement running premium...and so that is now my "personal" choice and recommendation.
Not that I think a lot of people are going to give a flying Fit....but I have to admit, I'm changing my opinion and my protocal.
After I purchased my Fit, I originally tested a few tanks of premium and a few tanks of regular..at top tier stations. I went for the first few months with regular. Then on a whim, I went back to premium...now after about a month? I'm NOT going back to regular.
Ok I'll also admit this is not based on any tangible scientific testing. This is purely empiracle feedback. BUT...I'm not going back because for the past month The Fit has run IMO so much better. Much quieter at idle, stronger acceleration that seems "smoother" and sounds less strained. Also the MPG meter is showing 1-2 miles per gallon better than it ever did on regular.
Imagined or not? These benefits are worth it to me. I'm saying now, I do notice a difference, and since the increase in MPG's almost offsets the increase in tank fill cost, I don't see much advantage to just going back to regular. When I ran regular, I got much louder idles, and a metalic ting when accelerating...all that is MUCH better on higher octane. Infact, although acceptable on regular...this is so much better that I'm feeling excited about it...this IS now the automobile I was hoping I purchased when I bought it.
I've followed this thread enough to know EVERYONE has their personal beliefs and protocal. Don't bother to tell me I'm wasting money...there is no difference..Okay...do what you want to do...all I'm saying is to me? I've noticed what I perceive as a pretty significant improvement running premium...and so that is now my "personal" choice and recommendation.
#250
10-22-2010, 04:09 PM
My automatic Honda Fit Sport runs better on premium too. I get 33 to 35 around town on Chevron or 76 premium where I will get 29 to 31 around town on regular.
I went back to regular this last fill up because premium is starting to get pricey and my mileage went down.
I went back to regular this last fill up because premium is starting to get pricey and my mileage went down.
Ok.
Not that I think a lot of people are going to give a flying Fit....but I have to admit, I'm changing my opinion and my protocal.
After I purchased my Fit, I originally tested a few tanks of premium and a few tanks of regular..at top tier stations. I went for the first few months with regular. Then on a whim, I went back to premium...now after about a month? I'm NOT going back to regular.
Ok I'll also admit this is not based on any tangible scientific testing. This is purely empiracle feedback. BUT...I'm not going back because for the past month The Fit has run IMO so much better. Much quieter at idle, stronger acceleration that seems "smoother" and sounds less strained. Also the MPG meter is showing 1-2 miles per gallon better than it ever did on regular.
Imagined or not? These benefits are worth it to me. I'm saying now, I do notice a difference, and since the increase in MPG's almost offsets the increase in tank fill cost, I don't see much advantage to just going back to regular. When I ran regular, I got much louder idles, and a metalic ting when accelerating...all that is MUCH better on higher octane. Infact, although acceptable on regular...this is so much better that I'm feeling excited about it...this IS now the automobile I was hoping I purchased when I bought it.
I've followed this thread enough to know EVERYONE has their personal beliefs and protocal. Don't bother to tell me I'm wasting money...there is no difference..Okay...do what you want to do...all I'm saying is to me? I've noticed what I perceive as a pretty significant improvement running premium...and so that is now my "personal" choice and recommendation.
Not that I think a lot of people are going to give a flying Fit....but I have to admit, I'm changing my opinion and my protocal.
After I purchased my Fit, I originally tested a few tanks of premium and a few tanks of regular..at top tier stations. I went for the first few months with regular. Then on a whim, I went back to premium...now after about a month? I'm NOT going back to regular.
Ok I'll also admit this is not based on any tangible scientific testing. This is purely empiracle feedback. BUT...I'm not going back because for the past month The Fit has run IMO so much better. Much quieter at idle, stronger acceleration that seems "smoother" and sounds less strained. Also the MPG meter is showing 1-2 miles per gallon better than it ever did on regular.
Imagined or not? These benefits are worth it to me. I'm saying now, I do notice a difference, and since the increase in MPG's almost offsets the increase in tank fill cost, I don't see much advantage to just going back to regular. When I ran regular, I got much louder idles, and a metalic ting when accelerating...all that is MUCH better on higher octane. Infact, although acceptable on regular...this is so much better that I'm feeling excited about it...this IS now the automobile I was hoping I purchased when I bought it.
I've followed this thread enough to know EVERYONE has their personal beliefs and protocal. Don't bother to tell me I'm wasting money...there is no difference..Okay...do what you want to do...all I'm saying is to me? I've noticed what I perceive as a pretty significant improvement running premium...and so that is now my "personal" choice and recommendation.
#251
10-22-2010, 06:38 PM
Let's not forget that we're talking about an economy car here, and as much fun as it is to drive, saving money was a big reason that many of us chose the Fit in the first place.
The OP is pretty much asking whether people have indeed noticed "crisper engine response and better average mpg." If they have, maybe it's worth the $2 a tank. If not, maybe we'd rather go out for a beer tonight.
#252
10-22-2010, 07:10 PM
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,428
For those of us who fill up 3+ times per week and are on a tight budget, that $2 is a bigger issue than you make it out to be. Hence this thread.
Let's not forget that we're talking about an economy car here, and as much fun as it is to drive, saving money was a big reason that many of us chose the Fit in the first place.
The OP is pretty much asking whether people have indeed noticed "crisper engine response and better average mpg." If they have, maybe it's worth the $2 a tank. If not, maybe we'd rather go out for a beer tonight.
Let's not forget that we're talking about an economy car here, and as much fun as it is to drive, saving money was a big reason that many of us chose the Fit in the first place.
The OP is pretty much asking whether people have indeed noticed "crisper engine response and better average mpg." If they have, maybe it's worth the $2 a tank. If not, maybe we'd rather go out for a beer tonight.
But from what I can see, the extra cost in many cases probably offsets the marginal mileage gain
And if $6-8/week is gonna break your budget that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't be having that $3-6 beer tonight either. When I mentioned my beer fund a few pages back that was sarcasm.
No one is pointing a gun to your head telling you to use premium. But at the same time if someone else wants to, why the fuss?
Just don't use less than 87oct in your L15A.. Though I can't think of seeing anywhere in the US that offers less than 87oct in the last decade of driving across the country.
Last edited by DiamondStarMonsters; 10-22-2010 at 07:14 PM.
#253
10-22-2010, 07:39 PM
No problem. I don't mind spending the extra $2 a tank if it's worth it. My only point is that it seems reasonable to ask what benefits other people have experienced, rather than just assuming that it's worthwhile. Isn't that kind of what forums are for in the first place? I'm not impoverished, I just don't want to be throwing money away.
Really? This is a thread about what type of fuel we put in the type of car we each own. I don't know if my last post sounded like fisticuffs to you or what, but I'm not trying to be a douche. I'm just saying, it seems reasonable to ask what the benefits are of that $2 a tank. (I.e. Should I put that $24/month toward a gym membership, or are there real reasons I should invest it in higher-octane fuel?) Sorry if I offended you.
No fuss on this end. If I see a dude with a huge wing on his car, I might be genuinely curious if there's a benefit to it. It doesn't mean I'm deriding him for putting a huge wing on his car, it just means I want to know if it's worth my (limited) money.
Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.
Really? This is a thread about what type of fuel we put in the type of car we each own. I don't know if my last post sounded like fisticuffs to you or what, but I'm not trying to be a douche. I'm just saying, it seems reasonable to ask what the benefits are of that $2 a tank. (I.e. Should I put that $24/month toward a gym membership, or are there real reasons I should invest it in higher-octane fuel?) Sorry if I offended you.Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.
#254
10-22-2010, 09:00 PM
I think you save money by buying premium the gas mileage is so much better. I am just cheap I am trying to save money. I get tank and a half a week. I got gas on Saturday night and I was on empty on Wednesday night after my sons soccer practice. Tonight I am at half full because I bought regular instead of premium. It seems like my little car is very particular on what gas I put in it. It does not like 'cheap' gas.
No problem. I don't mind spending the extra $2 a tank if it's worth it. My only point is that it seems reasonable to ask what benefits other people have experienced, rather than just assuming that it's worthwhile. Isn't that kind of what forums are for in the first place? I'm not impoverished, I just don't want to be throwing money away.
Really? This is a thread about what type of fuel we put in the type of car we each own. I don't know if my last post sounded like fisticuffs to you or what, but I'm not trying to be a douche. I'm just saying, it seems reasonable to ask what the benefits are of that $2 a tank. (I.e. Should I put that $24/month toward a gym membership, or are there real reasons I should invest it in higher-octane fuel?) Sorry if I offended you.
No fuss on this end. If I see a dude with a huge wing on his car, I might be genuinely curious if there's a benefit to it. It doesn't mean I'm deriding him for putting a huge wing on his car, it just means I want to know if it's worth my (limited) money.
Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.
Really? This is a thread about what type of fuel we put in the type of car we each own. I don't know if my last post sounded like fisticuffs to you or what, but I'm not trying to be a douche. I'm just saying, it seems reasonable to ask what the benefits are of that $2 a tank. (I.e. Should I put that $24/month toward a gym membership, or are there real reasons I should invest it in higher-octane fuel?) Sorry if I offended you.No fuss on this end. If I see a dude with a huge wing on his car, I might be genuinely curious if there's a benefit to it. It doesn't mean I'm deriding him for putting a huge wing on his car, it just means I want to know if it's worth my (limited) money.
Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.
#255
10-22-2010, 09:11 PM
Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.[/QUOTE]
Premium gas flame front burns faster than regular, and every fuel made has a self ignite temperature (Knock). Premium gas allows your car to run more efficient with least amount of gas used. Lets say your drive around at cruise at around 3000 rpm, your engine has overcome the friction losses but then the gas flame front moves across the piston and the far end the end gases self ignite(knock) and loss of power and gas mileage. Auto manufactures put Knock sensors on to save the motor but a incomplete burn causes more carbon build up and more gas to be used. Higher octane flame front burns faster with a slight delay and that slight delay causes the flame front to burn complete with out Knock and which means more power, lower emissions and a cleaner motor. Your engine can adjust to different gasoline and octane ratings meaning 87 is the lowest and the highest is 96 octane with MBT being reached the motor is producing the most power with the gas being used.
Premium gas flame front burns faster than regular, and every fuel made has a self ignite temperature (Knock). Premium gas allows your car to run more efficient with least amount of gas used. Lets say your drive around at cruise at around 3000 rpm, your engine has overcome the friction losses but then the gas flame front moves across the piston and the far end the end gases self ignite(knock) and loss of power and gas mileage. Auto manufactures put Knock sensors on to save the motor but a incomplete burn causes more carbon build up and more gas to be used. Higher octane flame front burns faster with a slight delay and that slight delay causes the flame front to burn complete with out Knock and which means more power, lower emissions and a cleaner motor. Your engine can adjust to different gasoline and octane ratings meaning 87 is the lowest and the highest is 96 octane with MBT being reached the motor is producing the most power with the gas being used.
#256
10-23-2010, 02:54 AM
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,428
No problem. I don't mind spending the extra $2 a tank if it's worth it. My only point is that it seems reasonable to ask what benefits other people have experienced, rather than just assuming that it's worthwhile. Isn't that kind of what forums are for in the first place? I'm not impoverished, I just don't want to be throwing money away.
Really? This is a thread about what type of fuel we put in the type of car we each own. I don't know if my last post sounded like fisticuffs to you or what, but I'm not trying to be a douche. I'm just saying, it seems reasonable to ask what the benefits are of that $2 a tank. (I.e. Should I put that $24/month toward a gym membership, or are there real reasons I should invest it in higher-octane fuel?) Sorry if I offended you.
No fuss on this end. If I see a dude with a huge wing on his car, I might be genuinely curious if there's a benefit to it. It doesn't mean I'm deriding him for putting a huge wing on his car, it just means I want to know if it's worth my (limited) money.
Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.
Really? This is a thread about what type of fuel we put in the type of car we each own. I don't know if my last post sounded like fisticuffs to you or what, but I'm not trying to be a douche. I'm just saying, it seems reasonable to ask what the benefits are of that $2 a tank. (I.e. Should I put that $24/month toward a gym membership, or are there real reasons I should invest it in higher-octane fuel?) Sorry if I offended you.No fuss on this end. If I see a dude with a huge wing on his car, I might be genuinely curious if there's a benefit to it. It doesn't mean I'm deriding him for putting a huge wing on his car, it just means I want to know if it's worth my (limited) money.
Sorry, everyone. In response to the OP, I use regular 87 gas, but I'm totally open to hearing reasons to switch. If it's more cost-effective, helps my engine last longer, etc., I'm open to paying a bit more for Fit food.
If you have a sedate driving style or tendency towards slow and smooth acceleration, you probably won't see much advantage with premium. If you saw any benefit it would be small in long term cost.
However there are compelling reasons for premium for someone who has a more lively or spirited driving style.
For the efficiency conscious, you may find yourself extending trips on a single tank a very minor amount, and the benefits would more or less be negated by the difference in cost. Though if by allowing you to fill up 10 times per month instead of 12 you may save like $20-40/year after subtracting the difference from a higher initial unit volume cost.
It is a fact that there are more top cylinder lubes and detergents in premium, so your cylinder head will stay cleaner which has several long term benefits.
Also, though it might have been rhetorical, a big rear wing would not do anyone any good on the street or highway as it would ruin their coefficient of drag and if it actually provided any downforce it would hurt performance because we are front wheel drive anyways.
A good front splitter and some rigid fender canards would plant the front axle a little better. A buddy club style pan under the engine bay and a nice diffuser underneath in the rear with a "kammback" style wing would suck the rear axle down to the pavement and decrease the overall coefficient of drag.
#257
10-23-2010, 06:36 AM
I fill up with Chevron 89 Octane, so right in the middle, not regular, not premium... just PLUS. 
Car runs great.
I see that in the first few pages there's debates between "top tiers" and such, but my bf told me that using the "low tier" gases are truly bad for your car compared to a top tier. He reported lower gas mileage, engine running rougher and even rough starts everytime he got gas at a "low tier" gas station (like your local small name gas station) on near Empty. He only fills up with Mobil usually and occasionally Chevron if he's low on gas and can't a mobil. He got 87 and 89, he said felt a slight difference in using the higher octane, like it ran smoother, but I guess that's because his car engine preferred premium fuel.
Car runs great. I see that in the first few pages there's debates between "top tiers" and such, but my bf told me that using the "low tier" gases are truly bad for your car compared to a top tier. He reported lower gas mileage, engine running rougher and even rough starts everytime he got gas at a "low tier" gas station (like your local small name gas station) on near Empty. He only fills up with Mobil usually and occasionally Chevron if he's low on gas and can't a mobil. He got 87 and 89, he said felt a slight difference in using the higher octane, like it ran smoother, but I guess that's because his car engine preferred premium fuel.
#258
10-23-2010, 11:54 AM
I fill up with Chevron 89 Octane, so right in the middle, not regular, not premium... just PLUS. Car runs great.
I see that in the first few pages there's debates between "top tiers" and such, but my bf told me that using the "low tier" gases are truly bad for your car compared to a top tier. He reported lower gas mileage, engine running rougher and even rough starts everytime he got gas at a "low tier" gas station (like your local small name gas station) on near Empty. He only fills up with Mobil usually and occasionally Chevron if he's low on gas and can't a mobil. He got 87 and 89, he said felt a slight difference in using the higher octane, like it ran smoother, but I guess that's because his car engine preferred premium fuel.
Car runs great. I see that in the first few pages there's debates between "top tiers" and such, but my bf told me that using the "low tier" gases are truly bad for your car compared to a top tier. He reported lower gas mileage, engine running rougher and even rough starts everytime he got gas at a "low tier" gas station (like your local small name gas station) on near Empty. He only fills up with Mobil usually and occasionally Chevron if he's low on gas and can't a mobil. He got 87 and 89, he said felt a slight difference in using the higher octane, like it ran smoother, but I guess that's because his car engine preferred premium fuel.
#260
10-23-2010, 12:17 PM
I understand that in the mountain states lower octane fuel is sold and works well at higher altitudes... In the mid 90s, 91 octane premium was the norm on the High Plains in west Texas and New Mexico. 93 octane is what is available as premium.