Interesting. In my real world example above re: Honda/Acura that still doesn't make much sense to me though. First of all, it is the same manufacturer we are talking about, so it's not Audi having one methodology vs Mercedes having another vs Toyota having a third. It is Honda vs HondAcura. Second, if they truly had more HP to wring from this engine, I would think they would report every last HP they could on the Acura side. In the segment it is competing in, you can never have enough HP. Which would lead one to assume that they are already reporting the highest HP they can.
MPG's
61 - 75 of 75 Posts
2022 MDX Aspec / 2019 Ridgeline Sport / 2007 335i Coupe
Joined
·
217 Posts
First off , that is a turbo car. The normal MDX is N\A. Running any higher octane fuel when compressing hot air at 10psi is always better for detonation, but Honda took a “type-r” engine and detuned it by over 50Hp to run efficiently with 87. So not exactly apples to apples, but let’s still discuss it.
Secondly, even the guy mentioned it was a small amount of HP. On a dyno, under normal pulls you can have 10HP swings with just heat soak or the variance in the engine doing absolutely nothing.
Third, when every one here says you can’t even feel any appreciable difference between octane, that dyno proves it. Who can feel 3+\-HP in the MDX at 290HP? Maybe a 1996 civic with 100HP you can feel a 3HP difference.
I have lived in Denver and traveled up to the mountains and naturally aspirated cars have a hard time up there and every day the car can feel different. Turbo cars are much more responsive which is why we purchased the first turbo Acura they made (AWD RDX).
Fourth , you mention a 30HP increase for 91. It didn’t happen on the turbo accord and it for sure isn’t happening on the naturally aspirated MDX. You forget that the computer has to be tricked in some way to work outside the programmed window \_/ to show any appreciable horsepower gains. That means a JB4 boost controller for that 2.0 accord , or by manually adjusting boost and fuel (FPR). Otherwise , it will just stay within that same programmed window.
I did not claim that 91 would net 30hp over 87, I claimed that the maximum difference is around 10%
But that is no small difference.
Also this test averaged multiple runs, if you actually watch the video...
Your contention is that there is no difference running 87 vs 91, that is just wrong. Your opinion on whether you can feel said difference is just that.
But that is no small difference.
Also this test averaged multiple runs, if you actually watch the video...
Your contention is that there is no difference running 87 vs 91, that is just wrong. Your opinion on whether you can feel said difference is just that.
None of the "87ers" are saying there is no actual scientific difference. The question is whether anyone can really notice a difference. 290 vs 285 is a rounding error. And that is at max peak HP. What is the difference when accelerating at 3500 rpm in regular spirited driving?
My strong guess is that none of you could pass the test I propose where you could correctly identify 87 vs 91 over 6 different random fillups on a blind test.
Right now where Iive the cost of 91 is 30% more than 87. It's like 4.45 vs 3.45. So driving 10k miles a year one is spending an extra 450 bucks. Very very likely to notice absolutely nothing. The common retort is "by definition if you are buying an Acura you can afford 450 bucks for extra gas money." Yes of course everyone can. Question is are you really getting anything for your money. Obviously everyone can make their personal choice there.
I did indeed watch the video. I didn't go to watch his "93" video although he indicated that on that one he wasn't seeing "as much difference as he saw on this test". Which is interesting in itself because one would think if there is notable difference between 91 and 87 then there would be more difference in 93 to 87. Perhaps the Denver elevation in the second test is a factor.
I am on my phone and trying to eyeball the table but it appears there is like a 3-4% difference across the bands. So could be tangible if someone has a sensitive "butt Dyno". Don't you find that output curve odd though? Look at the range below 3500 rpm. Why is the 87 curve so effed up while the 91 curve is still high although fluctuating like a sine wave in that area? You're the engineer and I am not but what is going on there? When I am accelerating in my V6 cars there seems to be plenty of torque pull even when I am pulling through 2500 or 3000 rpm so not seeing why the 87 graph would suggest nothing is happening in the car until it is reaching 3500-4000 rpms. If I am misreading the graph pls advise. Thanks man
Dynos don't read rpms 100% accurate or consistently, and also don't read as accurate at the low end of the range (like any measurement tool, not accurate at the low end) so I would imagine that variance is because of those factors.
Sometimes they can't even pick off rpm signal at all but you still get a result that is time based.
Sometimes they can't even pick off rpm signal at all but you still get a result that is time based.
2022 MDX Aspec / 2019 Ridgeline Sport / 2007 335i Coupe
Joined
·
217 Posts
Yes I watched it all. He got excited for 3HP consistent . I never even take peak HP as peak could be a spike or anomaly.
Variances in engine design could cause one MDX to have 287HP and another to have 290HP. Weather could cause one dyno run to show 293HP and the next day 290HP. It’s so tiny that it is insignificant. Most turbo cars from factory have a wider tuning window to prevent catastrophic failure since turbo charging causes the air to be heated.
To get back on topic:
Find any naturally aspirated Honda that gained MPG (or significant HP )by ONLY switching from 87 to 91.
Just curious as what people think is the reason Acura recommends 91 octane.
Does anyone other than a non-Acura owner believe the recommendation is based on ego? Ludicrous.
What does Acura possibly have to gain by the 91 octane recommendation? They're evil and just want their customers to spend extra money for no reason? Sure...
Just filled up with 93 octane and got a dollar off my touchless carwash. Shinning like a new penny. Zaino is insaneo. ✌
Does anyone other than a non-Acura owner believe the recommendation is based on ego? Ludicrous.
What does Acura possibly have to gain by the 91 octane recommendation? They're evil and just want their customers to spend extra money for no reason? Sure...
Just filled up with 93 octane and got a dollar off my touchless carwash. Shinning like a new penny. Zaino is insaneo. ✌
An interesting comparison from a handful of years ago…. 3 turbo and one NA.
www.caranddriver.com
Is Premium Gas Worth It? We Test High Octane on 4 Popular Vehicles
We tested higher octane fuel than manufacturers require on the Honda CR-V, BMW M5, Ford F-150, and Dodge Charger to see if it impacted acceleration or MPG.
www.caranddriver.com
2022 MDX Aspec / 2019 Ridgeline Sport / 2007 335i Coupe
Joined
·
217 Posts
I went back and looked at this thread from the beginning and around 12 people have provided results. From those results we could almost conclude what type of car you drive by the mileage you provide.
Type-S ~17avg
MDX AWD ~21avg
MDX FWD ~25avg
I’m summarizing or averaging so don’t get mad if it falls outside of those numbers. We know driving style /traffic/highway city changes numbers. I want to go check out other threads and just confirm or add to the numbers.
Type-S ~17avg
MDX AWD ~21avg
MDX FWD ~25avg
I’m summarizing or averaging so don’t get mad if it falls outside of those numbers. We know driving style /traffic/highway city changes numbers. I want to go check out other threads and just confirm or add to the numbers.
Dude. You're taking what I said and of course added hyperbole to change the meaning to fit your diss track. There could be many reasons they RECOMMEND it. My theory is that one of those reasons could be to match the "performance marketing" of the vehicle. This is not "ego". It is saying that Acura is a performance car and so we are giving you recommendations on how to ensure that you are getting most performance from the car. They aren't being "evil" and trying to get Acura owners to "waste their money." Do you not agree that the competitors in their segment are likely recommending premium fuel too? Can you not concede that there is some positive psychological feeling that one has as a potential buyer of this Premium segment to hear that your engine is recommended to use the highest quality fuel for maximum performance? Everyone agrees that Premium fuel will give you the best possible HP etc, nobody is saying otherwise. So I don't know why it is such a stretch for you to then accept that the marketer of your Acura would make a recommendation on that basis to align with the brand image.
Note (again) that they are stopping at a RECOMMENDATION and not a REQUIREMENT. Because indeed the engine will run fine on 87. Because it does when it is in an Odyssey or Pilot or Passport etc.
Instead of always dissing my thoughts why don't you offer something to the conversation of your own thought? Why do you think they make the recommendation then? Do you think it is because the engine is different and thus running at 87 isn't really wise? Is there some other reason you think they are making the recommendation? I would love to hear it. Mine is just a theory. Maybe you actually come up with your own theory to add to the discussion based on the facts as you know them?
Interesting read. Also, kind of crazy that a Ford F150 has a slightly quicker 0-60 time than the Type-S lmaoAn interesting comparison from a handful of years ago…. 3 turbo and one NA.
Is Premium Gas Worth It? We Test High Octane on 4 Popular Vehicles
We tested higher octane fuel than manufacturers require on the Honda CR-V, BMW M5, Ford F-150, and Dodge Charger to see if it impacted acceleration or MPG.
So in the Honda CRV 93 actually was no benefit or actually slightly WORSE. And they reference a similar test (a while back) for a Honda Accord V6 where it was actually quicker on regular fuel.
"Even as it's sucking down as much as 18.5 psi of boost, the CR-V's 1.5-liter inline-four isn't interested in 93 octane. Honda asks for 87 octane and makes no claims that raising the fuel octane will lift performance. Based on our testing, premium fuel might as well not exist in the CR-V's world.
We could see this coming. During a similar Car and Driver test 18 years ago, an Accord powered by a 3.0-liter V-6 made more power and accelerated quicker on regular fuel than on premium. The modern CR-V, with half the displacement but rated at just 10 fewer ponies, makes the same argument: don't waste your money on premium. Switching from 87 octane to 93 yielded a 7-hp gain on the dynamometer, but that advantage was lost in the noise at the track. There, the CR-V's zero-to-60-mph and quarter-mile times both tracked a tenth of a second slower on the expensive stuff. While fuel economy at 75 mph ticked up from 27.3 mpg to 27.6 mpg on premium, that's a 1 percent improvement for a 21 percent higher cost.
Honda built its reputation on a line of unassuming, egalitarian motorcycles in the '60s. Nearly 60 years later, the company's identity is still predicated on the same sensible and modest ethic, right down to the fuel that you put in the tank."
2014 MDX AWD Tech 115000 miles, Last 981 miles 21.4 mainly intown. Use 93 with 10% corn purchase frow QT or Cosco Top Tier. Still have original plugs (regardless of what dealer services say really don't need change until 160K unless problem.) Have driven 2023s as loaners and always glad to get mine back. Acura often makes changes for change sake. Dealers are routinely adding dealer options to jack up the price. Example Nitrogen for $300, door edge guards $249, Cup guard what ever that is $249, extra window tint," ceramic" $1300. Take the KY with you when shopping.
61 - 75 of 75 Posts
