By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Using premium is also discouraged if the car is designed for regular. Even if you get more percieved performance from using premium, it's designed for regular and should run just fine. Additionally, premium is $.20 more per gallon. Is the "extra" performance worth it?
What am I missing here...Why can't people just read and follow directions?
Confused and amused in sunny South Florida.
The Sandman :-)
i wholeheartedly agree with you about gasoline. however, at least the new accords have dual range knock sensors that can take "advantage" of higher octane fuel and deliver more power and torque. imo, what is really stupid is when people put high octane in a vehicle that can't take advantage of it. this is just plain stupid!! and a complete waste of money.
then there are people who put so-called premium (high octane) in their car because they think premium means better...as in better quality. again, stupid if you ask me!
They allow a car that should have 89 or 92 to use a lower grade. The sensors detect knocking and tell the computer which can retard the spark or adjust whatever to compensate for the faster ignition of the air/gasoline mixture.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
After 8.5 hours the seats were still comfortable and the car has a solid, safe feel. The XM radio is excellent, too.
Is a Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, really worth the price? The Accord has a luxury car feel for a fraction of what those cars cost. I think the Accord is a great car!.......Richard
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It is a simple program of the ECU 'testing' the ignition timing. Since the Honda(and many other) engines are coil on plug, it is easily feasible that the ECU can continually advance timing until it 'sees' a knock, then retard timing back a bit. Between that and your 2-3 O2 sensors, your engine can run at it's best.
i think your request has already been answered...
gregoryc1,
forgive me for being rash because i understand that everyone has a different comfort level. however i'll still say that having an extended warranty and then spending extra money to supposedly make an engine last longer when it's covered by warranty just seems like money down the toilet...
A knock sensor doesn't do anything to allow an engine to use a higher octance fuel than that for which it was engineered; it lets the computer adapt to a lower octane fuel by retarding the spark.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
the accord, unlike many other cars, has a fuel/electronic system that allows it to use fuel that is 86 or higher octane. regular unleaded is recommended. however, using high octane fuel does net a slight increase in horsepower and torque over using regular octane unleaded...
And EMALE, I agree 100%, perhaps "knock sensors" is a misnomer in the case of Honda's engines. However, there probably is a limit(I have no idea what it is) as to how much timing advance the ECU can provide and without dyno testing or consulting some Honda engineers, we will probably never know.
i wish i could find the article about the new accord and dual stage knock sensors vs single stage knock sensors...but i've been unable to find...
However, the 4-cylinder Accord engine would not have any benefit by filling with premium, since the compression ratio is fairly mild at 9.7:1 and is truly designed to be run with regular fuel.
Later...AH
Assuming 12,000 miles and good condition here is what kbb.com says:
03 EX-L auto: MSRP: $24,790 trade-in: $18,255
03 XLE 4 cyl: MSRP: $26,200 trade-in: $16,025
I chalk it up to maybe the rebates that Toyota has been offering with the Camry along with it's higher percentage of fleet sales (10-12% vs. 2%).
An engine running retarded so much from its performance at 93 octane levels would be poor running at 87 octane, two levels below its design.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We would both agree that 4 cyl. doesn't need or benefit from premium. Plus might be nice..., but I'd save my money most of the time.
Tried a test with plus vs regular on a trip.
Improved gas mileage 0.5 mpg. 1.6% increase in mileage; 6.6 % increase in price.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
i actually tried running high octane in my v6 but couldn't "tell" any meaningful difference in power or mpg. i usually end up putting in what's cheapest; and around here it's the 10 percent ethanol 89 octane. but my point all along was that at least according to honda engineers, if you put high octane in the v6, you aren't throwing your money down the toilet like you are with most other cars/engines rated for 87.
gregory,
no booze or smokes or gambling...geesh...now that wouldn't be a good year ...
Later...AH
You will have to run with premium for at least a couple of tankfuls (or reset your ECU), before you will experience any additional power or mpg.
Later...AH
"You will have to run with premium for at least a couple of tankfuls (or reset your ECU), before you will experience any additional power or mpg."
No need to get personal as if I have an issue...
You're saying the electronics are so well designed they allow an engine built for 93 to run on 87. Then in the next post it's the engine is as adaptable and you have to reset the computer or use several tankfuls.
My original fact was that people said the "knock sensors" allowed the engine to build up to be able to use 93 from normally running on 87 octane. That's not what knock sensors do; they retard the spark when knock from problems or octane occurs. That's the reverse. Got it?
Read through the sequence of posts again. Maybe that will help. EOD.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
it always makes me chuckle to hear YOU MUST USE PREMIUM or the engine will lose power, MPG's, or get "sludge", or die early, etc.
if that were true, can you imagine how much auto makers would be paying out in warranty service?? they make the engines to run on anything - they can't afford the repair bills/bad press that would be coming along if they left it up to consumers to make such important decisions....
Your point is well taken. If I could shave one or two tenths of a second getting to 60 mph by "flooring it" once a week, it surely wouldn't be worth wasting money buying 91 octane fuel all year for a vehicle designed to operate on 87 octane, such as my 2004 EX V6 Coupe. Clearly, "more horsepower" is overkill for anyone using this engine, that performs superbly when fueled as Honda specifies for us mere mortals.
the accord v6 is rated 240 hp on 87 octane...that's what i burn...the cheap stuff!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://sohc.vtec.net/article_files/58735/03accordexv6_dyno.jpg
Dyno of the V6.
I'm wondering if any of you LX owners have had the 16" alloy wheels installed that are part of the LX convenience package. If so, was that a good experience? Did your dealer have them in stock? What do you think of their appearance? Did you have them installed as you bought the car? According to the catalog, that's the only way to have them covered by the new car warranty.
A related question is if anyone knows if there is a difference in the engine rpms at highway speed with the 15" standard LX wheels compared with the 16" EX wheels. I've driven an EX 4cyl. and noticed about 2300 rpms at 70. If the standard LX 15" wheels push the rpms up, have the 16" alloys via the convenience package brought them back down?
For those of you who would suggest I go ahead and get the EX, that's a good suggestion. It is a good value, with the alloys, CD changer, moonroof, etc. However, I'm not particularly interested in a moonroof, but I do like alloys (and lower rpms on the highway), so I'm considering the LX with alloys added. I also think I'm going to like the extra headroom without the moonroof, since I'm somewhat tall. My head does clear in the EX, but not by much.
Thanks very much for any advice or experiences you have had with these wheels.
I believe all dealer-installed options/accessories are covered for 12mos/12k miles or until the end of the factory 36mo/26k mile warranty, whichever is later. You could get them installed 6 months from now and they would still be covered until the end of the factory warranty.
I have driven both an LX (loaner from dealer service dept.) and EX (which I own). The major additions in the EX are the moonroof, 6-disk CD changer, steering wheel radio controls, adjustable lumbar support, and alloy wheels. I drive a lot and really like the steering wheel audio controls and CD changer on the EX, especially on long trips. The adjustable lumbar support in the EX is okay, but the LX seats were a little more comfortable for me. Personally, I think the alloy wheels on the EX are nicer than any of the accessory wheels. The deciding factor for me was the sunroof. Either way you will end up with a nice car.
The LX's tire size 205x65x15 has about a 2% smaller circumference than the EX's 205x60x16 (ref: tirerack.com).
Try ebay for some good deals.
The 4-cyl and 6-cyl Accords were designed SPECIFICALLY to use 87 octane gasoline.
The 4-cyl recieves no benefit from using 89 or higher.
The 6-cyl has dual-stage knock sensors and CAN take a small advantage of premium gasoline. Honda engineers have revealed in interviews that the HP and torque ratings were achieved for both engines by using 87 octane, but that the V6 is designed in such a way that using higher-octane gas may yield more hp and a little more performance.
I'll also take a turn at beating the dead horse: when you mention what honda recommends for oil change intervals, save the newbies some confusion and specify which engine you are speaking of. The 6-cyl and the 4-cyl differ greatly on this.
If you want references on what I said about octane, don't bother me for the references. Find it yourself like I did. You can find it in the forum. It was MONTHS ago, so you'll likely have to use the search button, or even hit Google and look around.
rcc8179: I did think about the differing tire profiles (205/60 vs. 205/65) after posting my questions. That's a good thought, and I'm sure you're right about the overall diameter of wheel and tire being about the same in both cases. At any rate, I'll see the rpms on the LX tonight when I drive it. Also, thanks for the tip on lumbar support. I tend to like it retracted as far as possible, so I'll see if the LX seat suits.