It can dial up its 240 horses using only 87 octane. The J30A4 is the exception to the octane rule because its ECU is sophisticated enough to advance the timing slightly when it senses higher octane fuel is being used. Supposedly (quoth Honda's chief engineer) using 91-93 adds about 10 horses.

 

This is a common misconception. I most cases using premium in a engine that is designed for regular will reduce mileage or hve no affect. IN will almost never imrpove mileage if comparing equivalent qualities of gasoline. Premium fuel effectively retards the ignition timing because it is more "stable" and ignites less easily. The piston and combustion chamber design of most newer engines even high performence, high compression engines allow the use the regular grade gasoline. Many motorccyles for example with compression ratios exceeding 12.5:1 run OK on 89 or 87 octane, but are a little smoother running on premium.

Premium fuel is much more expensive. I find it funny that BMW advertises the igh mleage of their cars, yet they all requre premium fuel. While most Lexus, Honda and Acura cars don't and still get better mileage and equal perforamnce.

THe one exception is that some premium fuel does not have ethanol. Ethanol contains less energy by volume, so it can slightly reduce mileage in some cases.

 

Our TSX requires premium, I think all Acura's do. It runs smoother on the good stuff too. Most luxury cars that run $30k require premium fuel, I hate when people B**** about the price of premium.

Tight @$$es, why'd you buy the car in the first place, a Camry would have saved you a few pennies.

 

I personally use 93 not because it gives me more power but because it burns cleaner, often people just talk about how a car doesnt need higher octane fuel becaue if your car was designed to run on 87 there is no chance of premature combustion if u stick with 87 so why go higher, this is true, but premium fuels also have a better composition and thus can burn cleaner and contain more energy.

Its only 10 cents more per gallon, if it was .40 i doubt i would keep using it.

 

And you need to recall back in the '00 time frame some places (in Ohio any how) still had gas for .99/gal at some points during the year, oh to dream such dreams once again. Milk was more expensive per gallon then gas, that's insane![/quote]


Milk is more expensive than gas but then again you don't consume 14 gallons of milk per week do you? It's all about economics and supply and demand.

 

Milk is more expensive than gas but then again you don't consume 14 gallons of milk per week do you? It's all about economics and supply and demand.[/QUOTE]


Look at the historical trending, Milk shouldn't cost more then gas per/gal...we are spoiled. Even at $2/gal gas is insanely cheap vs. cost decades ago adjusted for inflation. Gas is cheap, period.

(I'll rant for a minute, I have buddies with multiple big screen HD tv's, paying for multi room bagillion channel HD signals per month, and DSL, and movie changels and sunday ticket, etc, etc. They go out and buy TSX's and then b**** about the cost of premium fuel. SHUT THE F*** UP you idiots! -- gas is cheap. Perhaps my buds should down grade a channel package or two to afford the gas for the Acura? )

 

I agree we're spoiled as Americans but milk should not cost less because we get it from the good ole' US of A. If we got it from the Middle East like our oil, then it would be cheaper than gas. Also, gas would cost more than milk if we extracted all our own oil right here at home.
How did we get off topic anyways?

 

Transportation costs for Milk should be much lower then those for millions of gallons of gas from around the world don't you think? We are the USA we find ways to make almost any good more efficient and cheaper to get. I'm sure we have reduced the costs associated with Milk drastically.

I also don't need to refine or process milk nearly as much as crude oil, would you agree?