The purpose of ignition advance it to ignite the fuel as soon as possible to get the most out of it. If the fuel ignites or explodes before top dead center then you get detonation or pinging. So on most computer controlled cars the engine computer listens to the knock sensor and advances the timing until a just slight knock is heard. Then computer retards the timing slightly to eliminate the pinging while still providing the maximum time the ignited mixture remains in the cylinder.

This advance point varies depending on how much air and fuel is in the cylinder. The amount of air in the cylinder varies depending on how far the butterfly is open in the throttle body (meaning how far you are pressing on the gas pedal). So ignition advance is a constantly changing thing as you drive.

Octane rating is the measurement of the burn rate. Higher octane fuel can be ignited slightly sooner without detonation (pinging). So yes higher octane fuel might get you marginally better mileage but from everything I have read it is barely measurable.

What is more measurable is the different fuels available. Summer mix fuel has more energy per gallon than winter fuel. Ethanol (alcohol) has even lower energy per gallon than gasoline. Also the mix changes monthly so it is not just a summer and winter mix.

You can chase octane rating all you want, but it the end you will not see much if any difference using different octane fuel above 85. Yes I said 85. On a side note, lower octane fuel (85 or so) is routinely sold in higher altitude areas like Denver. The gas companies get by with this because WOT does not bring in as much air at 5000 or 10,000 feet as it does at 0 or 1000 feet. So lower octane fuel will not ping in those areas.

Chase the numbers all you want it will not make much difference. If for some reason your fuel is a little low in octane rating the engine computer will handle it for you. This car is sold and used all over the world where different fuel qualities are used. People in Japan, the US, and Canada (and a few other countries) are blessed with a great fuel quality control. So do not worry about it.

 

My owner's manual, Pg 206 is talking about replacing the 2 bulbs at the rear license plate. What manual were you looking at as these 2 things are not at all related.


Just went through the whole manual and nowhere does it mention anything about Premium fuel (プレミアムガソリン). Only place it mentions about fuel at all is on Pg 189, in the specs for the 1.3L on Pg 253 and in the specs for the 1.5L on Pg 255. Maybe you were looking at a GD Fit manual or just made shit up to try and look cool?

 

555, I think it's best we just give up this futile "argument."

The way I see it... there are two sides. Those of us that have seen some benefit from higher octane gas and those that have not. And despite the fact that we acknowledge that it requires a more aggressive driving style/habit to see it, they refuse to acknowledge it in ANY condition... intent on claiming that their "subdued" driving habits are their proof that it doesn't exist.

Reminds me of the people that claimed the Earth was flat... or that we where the center of the universe. They took their limited point of view and assumed that was the fact that ruled over everything else and not made any earnest attempt to see the other point of view.

That being said, I'm done with this topic.

I know what my experience tells me... and I acknowledge that not everyone experiences the same things I do. It's too bad that they can't even acknowledge that much.

 

Have you ever circumnavigated the globe?

 

Looks like another "gas thread" down the tubes or is it up in smoke? Depends on the octane I guess... Happy Friday everyone!

 

Lulz, you really think I made it up?


Here's the link to download the Japanese 2012 Honda Fit manual directly from Honda.jp in case you think I photoshopped the Japanese in. I'm sure there's somewhere in your manual that talks about premium gasoline, but in case it doesn't, download this one and look on page 206.

Honda | ??????????? | ???

 

Okay, so because 500 years ago people had almost no scientific knowledge and made mistakes based on their ignorance we should now ignore all science?

 

This site and my table just don't want to get along... had a post typed up and finished... then it crashed when I hit the submit. blah.

I, myself, have NOT done so. At best, I did half, as I was born in Cambodia and have taken two trips there, while living in the US.

My father, my brother and a friend have all done so. Though, in my brother's case, it took some 20 years (he left Cambodia, went to France, then came to the US and visited Cambodia when my grandmother passed away).

So, are you saying that... in reality, I can only see, at best a few miles, down the road. And that the world isn't a giant spinning chunk of rock floating through space... but a few mile radius of land (with the occasional water) that I can see? That it's a world that constantly changes to fit my view?

That I should disregard the experiences of everyone around me... and just believe the world is flat? Well... here's a simple proof the world isn't flat.

Stand at a port where you can watch LARGE ships. Why do they appear to sink/submerge as they go further away? Why do they appear to rise out of the water as they get closer? It doesn't prove that the world is LARGE, but does prove there's a curve to the world.

This, as the story goes, is how Christopher Columbus thought he could travel to Asia going west, instead of south around Africa and then east by India.

Your argument makes no sense, what's your point? I was advocating MORE scientific research. I want more data, not on just a run from stop to red line on a dyno. But multiple WOT pushes with little time to cool the engine off.

I am among those that say there is benefit, with the conditions that WE have. And acknowledge that you won't see that benefit if you don't go through those conditions. But the "naysayers" are the flat earth people, they only see their limited conditions, and then claim that there's no benefit in ANY condition.

You guys are freaking hilarious with your arguments.

Let me give you a more recent, and personal, example of scientific testing and multiple conditions.

Sometime in 2001, I built a new computer. It was pretty stable... but the next year, for some reason, when I played a specific game (Unreal Tournament 2003, it came out in 2002), the system would crash.

However, on the forum... there were a great many people that DIDN'T encounter this issue and claimed that those of us that were encountering, were making it up.

When a survey amongst ourselves was done (scientific "testing"?), it showed we all had something in common... a chip on the motherboard in combination with a specific brand and model sound card (the conditions)... and of course, the game.

None of the people that DIDN'T have the crash, had those three combinations ("limited" conditions), so they refused to believe us.

That is, until BOTH the chipmaker and sound card companies, independently produced fixes for the issue (as they eventually tested and found it would've occurred in other games too).

 

I'm asking for something other than "it pulls timing" or "it feels faster."

 

You can read that stuff?

 

You don't need a dyno really, all you have to see is if running 91 allows the ECU to advance timing more than it does by running 87. If yes (which I believe people on here have proven already?) then you will gain a performance advantage, however small it may be.

A dyno is probably the LEAST scientific measurement that can be made on a car as far as performance goes, there are too many variables.

 

My manual nowhere at all mentions premium gasoline, I went through all 263 pages. And regardless if the 2012 manual states such it doesn't apply to my Fit whatsoever. If you think otherwise, well when you have your ECU altered where it calls for a 2 step colder plug and the use of premium, go ahead and run regular and keep the stock plugs.

On top of that, Honda mentions you won't see much improvement, didn't say zero improvement. Again, most buying a Fit, especially here in Japan are using them as A-B car and not pushing the engine to extremes. So as already stated, running premium in this instance is not at all necessary. By Honda's own words, even if a small improvement, an improvement is still an improvement.

Next...

 

My experience every day is the world is flat. Well flat with some bumps.

You seem to be an expert. I'll take your word for it.


Seems fair. I wonder why the oil companies haven't published such a study? I wonder why no one has? Well, except, for the 11 year old Car and Driver article.

 

google translation is "does not change significantly." Interesting word, significant...

 

not really, just two: torque and RPM. Of course it doesn't measure efficiency.

 

All I can say is research. The proof is a few key strokes away.

 

I should have known of all people you rely on Google translate. Horrid translation, but it does go hand in hand with your QuikTrip "R&D".

And yet still does not change significantly, but that still means a change is made. Just give up your feable attempt to discredit sonething you will not even test for yourself. Then again the world is flat according to your everyday pandering about.

 

what I've learned from this thread:

1) "regular" octane gasoline in Japan (89RON) is lower octane than here (87AKI) and not the opposite as has been claimed by the "experts" on this board.

2) Honda Japan in their 2012 Fit user manual recommends regular gas, and while premium may be used, it does not change performance significantly.

Research is a wonderful thing.

 

Ignorance is a wonderful thing and you sit in the high chair. Remember you even asked if I know what a standard is, yet I said gas all over in Japan that I have been is 94RON for regular which is 89AKI. So you may want to reword your "expert" failed wording. Or maybe your reading comprehension is lacking, remember the GREATER THAN symbol residing in front of that 89?

 

I don't doubt that the oil marketing in Japan includes raising the octane above the minimum standard of 89RON in order to compete (especially at $7+ per US gallon). But I do know that Honda would build its cars according to the minimum Japanese standard and not some local marketing campaign.

Are you sure you understand ">="?