PsychDoc

My '07 ES350 says that but it runs perfectly on 87.

I'm getting the '09 Acura TL soon and I see the same recommendation.

Call me cynical but does that really mean you have to use 91 or better gas?

The TL has a high compression engine so is the issue that I'd be getting a couple less hp if I ran it on 87 or would there be actual damage done to the engine?

I don't mind putting in premium if it's really necessary but I would feel like a jerk if it ended up being just like my ES350 which runs perfectly on 87.

dunnojack

recomended doesn't mean required.

bad co

if you cant afford the extra 20 cents on the gallon than what buisness do you have driving premium cars

f=ma

it wont run perfectly on 87.

PsychDoc

There's a difference between "can't afford" and "not wanting to waste money."

But thanks for the unnecessarily obnoxious respose anyway.

tex2670

Can't we all get along?

On the one hand, the likelihood that any individual will be driving their car in such a manner as to notice the fact that the car is not performing to its "optimum performance" is low, which is what happens when you use 87 when 91 is recommended (so you get 250 or 260 hp instead of 270 or 280).

But--your mpg may suffer. So if you lose a couple of mpg by saving 20-30 cents at the pump, you may not really be saving $$. The amount you save is really not that much at all in a year--maybe $100-$150 if you put 10,000 miles on your car per year.

Most CL members believe that if you are going to spend $35-40G's on a car that is engineered to perform well, why not kick in another $100 per year for it to perform the way it was engineered to? I can't disagree with this logic.

whoster

I think this topic has been beat to death...


and seriously? If you're don't want to "waste money" on premium, why bother purchasing a car that the manufacturer recommends using premium...


and f=ma is right. it won't run perfectly.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

I don't think his response is "obnoxious"... As matter of fact, he got a valid point.

At my local gas station (Chevron), the premium currently is $2.33/gallon and regular is $2.17/gallon. Assuming one drives a lot like me (between 4 to 5 times a month) and with a 16-gallon tank:

Premium: $156.24 per month
Regular: $167.76 per month

The difference is $12 a month and $144 A YEAR!!

Personally I don't think spending $12 more for premium a month is wasting money, it's more like an investment to keep your luxury car running on top notch condition.

I also don't understand if you are willing to spend a premium on a "glorified Camry" what is it that's keeping you to give it premium?

rdgdawg

+1... WITH ALL DUE RESPECT... SERIOUSLY... WHY IS THIS A QUESTION???

Recommended is just that... not required.... but if you drive a premium car and have to ask

MJImport

iTrader: (1)

I have noticed the engine runs smoother on the higher octane, but the engine had over 100k miles so it might depend on the vehicle.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

we've done this a zillion times.

the car's electronics adjusts timing (was gonna say retards but someone might take offense ) to avoid knocking/pinging on the lower octane gas and you WILL have less power available. if you drive like a granny, who cares, i guess.

still psychdoc, you're getting bent over so bad with taxes in NY maybe saving a few bucks a week is important.

personally i'd rather go with what the manufacturer recommends. i don't think there's any incentive for them to recommend premium so why decide you're smarter than they are?

IS-SV

It's a recommendation I don't waste time questioning. I like the full amount of horsepower that my car was designed to deliver.

mmarshall

"Perfectly" is is perhaps an abstract term. Your ES350's fairly high-compression V6 may run "perfectly", on 87 Octane, in terms of not creating any audible ping or knocking, but that is because the knock sensor is causing the computer to retard the spark timing.....all other things equal, the lower the octane, the more the spark has to be retarded to prevent knocking. That has the effect of lowering power, lowering gas mileage and adding heat to the engine. The extra heat itself can cause more premature detonation, so the computer may have to retard the spark even more to compensate. So, yes, your engine may run "perfectly" in that you don't hear (or see) any significant ill effects, but with low-octane gas, you are losing both power and gas mileage (though in minor amounts) and adding some heat. The heat issue, though, may be unclear, because, on some cars, the computer will also run the electric fan and keep the thermostat open more to compensate for extra heat.

dunnojack

i've seen people report that 87 octane mileage won't differ much, if at all, from top octane.

Why buy a car if you don't want to spend money on gas?
Well, first, you don't consider gas octane as a reason to buy a car.
you bought the car because you liked the comfort, tech, appearance, etc etc

some of you are so quick to judge.

if 87 octane doesn't make a real world difference in everyday commute, why waste the money? penny saved is a penny earned. take that $100 and buy yourself a nice meal

now the question I've yet to find an answer to..... will 87 octane damage the engine in the long run?
I have an old old toyota for which premium gas was recommended. i put nothing but the cheapest 87 gas in it. still runs fine.

leedogg

IMO the car will run fine, although somewhat inneficiently. Cost savings are questionable due to the MPG hit. Additional wear and tear on the engine is probably minimal, not something that should impact you unless you plan on keeping it for >10 yrs.

This sorta reminds me of those people that pay 100's of dollars to go skiing, yet stubbornly ski on >10 year old ski equipment that rides like ****. If you're going to pay all that money for something, might as well enjoy it to its full extent.