Accord V6 performs worse on PULP?

[Alpine]

nwilton writes...
The Honda Accord V6, actually performs worse with Premium fuel.


The above quote was something I read on another forum. I am seeking if there is any truth in the above statement that you might know of? I would have thought the current model 3.0 V6 would love the premium juice, rather than crappy ol' regular unleaded...

[EuroAccord13]

What forum is that? Who is the writer? Is he someone who is just a member like you or a figure well known in the automotive editorial industry etc? Has he got any factual evidence?

[EuroDude]

nwilton is a n00b. ;)

I think the new Accord engines are designed for Premium Fuel 95+RON, arent they?

Using normal unleaded can cause knocking and not recommended for extended usage despite the knock sensors.

[Alpine]

nwilton is a n00b.

The new Accord engines are designed for Premium Fuel 95+RON.

Using normal unleaded can cause knocking and not recommended for extended usage despite the knock sensors.

Are you sure about that?? We have a current model V6 Accord and the manual states 91 RON is to be used.

[Alpine]

What forum is that? Who is the writer? Is he someone who is just a member like you or a figure well known in the automotive editorial industry etc? Has he got any factual evidence?

It's the Whirlpool forum.

I've asked him for evidence or source of his information but have had no response as yet. He's just another user.

[EuroDude]

Are you sure about that?? We have a current model V6 Accord and the manual states 91 RON is to be used.

Really? Thats suprising, I thought it used premium like the Euro. :o

[SiReal]

RACV did a test on the falcon and festiva. Since both were 'fords' and more designed for aussie conditions, one would assume it would be rated at 91RON stock. HOWEVER, when 98 and 95 was used on both cars, both cars received greater power and faster acceleration with the 95 RON, NOT the 98 RON. I dont have the issue of the RACV mag anymore, but maybe it is on the internet?

[EuroAccord13]

It's the Whirlpool forum.

I've asked him for evidence or source of his information but have had no response as yet. He's just another user.


Yeah good on ya to ask for some evidence... Prolly a Honda hater LOL!.....
See how he comes up with a reply :D

[Omotesando]

RACV did a test on the falcon and festiva. Since both were 'fords' and more designed for aussie conditions, one would assume it would be rated at 91RON stock. HOWEVER, when 98 and 95 was used on both cars, both cars received greater power and faster acceleration with the 95 RON, NOT the 98 RON. I dont have the issue of the RACV mag anymore, but maybe it is on the internet?


Makes complete sense to me. If ECU is tuned for 91 and maximum 95RON fuel, then putting in 98RON should theoretically reduce power due to reasons discussed on this forum before.



However, we're not sure on Euro Accord 4 cylinders nor for normal Accord V6. This is because there hasn't been any tests on them running the various fuels. It might go either way. The thing is, it has everything to do with the factory ECU adaptability, settings and how much advanced timing it is allowed to run.


So it could go both ways.

But if the car has been TUNED using aftermarket ECU, then obviously the 98 RON will win everytime :)

[yfin]

If ECU is tuned for 91 and maximum 95RON fuel, then putting in 98RON should theoretically reduce power due to reasons discussed on this forum before.


Maybe the theory was discussed - but certainly not backed up by the person making the claims that you can lose power using premium. I should also say that BP said the claims were wrong.

link (http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26880&highlight=lose+power)

[Omotesando]

Maybe the theory was discussed - but certainly not backed up by the person making the claims that you can lose power using premium. I should also say that BP said the claims were wrong.

link (http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26880&highlight=lose+power)


You are making a very bold assumption here.

Did BP test 'their' theory on the Accord Euro or the V6 Accord?
BP sells fuel.
Do I?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm sticking to my belief - that unless we test it thoroughly, we can't come to a conclusion.

I'm certainly not going to believe in BP, who is perhaps interested in making profit by selling everyone 98RON if possible. So does, Shell and Mobil.

[yfin]

You are making a very bold assumption here.

Did BP test 'their' theory on the Accord Euro or the V6 Accord?
BP sells fuel.
Do I?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm sticking to my belief - that unless we test it thoroughly, we can't come to a conclusion.

I'm certainly not going to believe in BP, who is perhaps interested in making profit by selling everyone 98RON if possible. So does, Shell and Mobil.

There was no theory by BP - the theory was from the ozhonda member.

The main part of the theory by the ozhonda member was higher octane fuel burns slower - thus you must start the burn process earlier than normal if you are running these fuels. Otherwise you are delaying peak cylinder pressure, and reducing overall power... blah blah

Well the response from BP was -

High octane fuels do not burn more slowly than low octane fuels. They all burn at the same rate.

Now that response from BP applies to all premium fuels - and is not vehicle specific. So testing is irrelevant - the theory by the ozhonda member is flawed according to BP.

As for not believing BP - that is your choice. There are laws in this country relating to misleading conduct. If you have evidence to prove they are wrong on this topic you should do something about it. I'll stick to relying on reputable sources rather than believing everything I read on the internet.

[Omotesando]

There was no theory by BP - the theory was from the ozhonda member.

The main part of the theory by the ozhonda member was higher octane fuel burns slower - thus you must start the burn process earlier than normal if you are running these fuels. Otherwise you are delaying peak cylinder pressure, and reducing overall power... blah blah

Well the response from BP was -

High octane fuels do not burn more slowly than low octane fuels. They all burn at the same rate.

Now that response from BP applies to all premium fuels - and is not vehicle specific. So testing is irrelevant - the theory by the ozhonda member is flawed according to BP.

As for not believing BP - that is your choice. There are laws in this country relating to misleading conduct. If you have evidence to prove they are wrong on this topic you should do something about it. I'll stick to relying on reputable sources rather than believing everything I read on the internet.



If everyone adhered to the 'law' there would never be class actions as well as needing to go to the court. In the ideal world, there would be no police, no cops, no courts and no need to contest anything. Your argument that laws protect THEREFORE must be right is vague at best. The court is there to act as the mediator due to the fact that sometimes one side could be wrong, whether they wanted it to be or not.


YFIN: "If you have evidence to prove they are wrong on this topic you should do something about it. "

Sometimes I wonder if you can read properly. I already said I would only believe the 'result' when the tests have been done on that particular car in question. As far as I'm concerned, I thought I have made it perfectly clear to you that I'm as UNBIASED as it can get and certainly better than your insistence on quoting another knob on the forum who clearly doesn't understand fuel and then coming to the conclusion that BP said his theory is wrong (which it is definitely wrong), then it means BP must be correct in everything else. In this case then, BP did not actually make any marketing mistakes which necessitates for looking into the 'law' side of things anyway as you've suggested.



BP, Shell, Mobil have interests in making profit. I not believing them doesn't mean I think they are incorrect. Ever heard of the word Agnostic? That is why INDEPENDENT testing is utmost important.


Which is partially explained here for these PARTICULAR two cars by RACV:

http://motoring.racv.com.au/racvm/fsearch_show.cfm?id=DD7CFEC1-6DC4-41E2-A14AB62BC18ED9B0



The statistics picture is a big blurred, but the conclusion is.
FALCON gained fuel economy going from 91 to 95RON.
FALCON LOST fuel economy going from 95 to 98RON.
FALCON gained performance going from 91 to 95RON.
FALCON LOST performance going from 95 to 98RON.


FIESTA gained fuel economy going from 91 to 95RON.
FIESTA GAINED fuel economy going from 95 to 98RON.
FIESTA gained performance going from 91 to 95RON.
FIESTA LOST performance going from 95 to 98RON.



What statistics have BP given you except saying that higher octane fuel doesn't burn slower than normal fuel?
The keyword in fact isn't 'burn slower' as in the flamefront during combustion process spreading slower, but the fact that it takes higher activation energy to start the higher octane fuel's burning process!


The thing we want to ask due to the nature of this thread is - WHAT will happen, when 98Ron fuel, and of various companies type, when this is put into a V6 Accord which can run on 91RON?

What about in the Euro Accord?

As far as I'm concerned, none of us can come to that conclusion just yet. Why don't we ask RACV to do a test on them then? :p

[aaronng]

As tempting as it is, I'm not going to go too deep in this argument. I'll just give my opinion.

Whether you gain or lower performance and economy when going from 91 to 95 and 98 oct fuel depends on each car on an individual basis. No one can generalise a trend in power and economy when fuel octane rating is changed because not every car has the same type of ECU. Some ECUs have more memory and can therefore accomodate more fuel maps if the manufacture feels like putting it in (Holden Astra. ECU advances timing for higher octane fuel, making more power. There are different power figures for 91oct and premium unleaded printed in the manual). Others are limited and also have to accomodate software for the automatic transmission and hence have no space for additional maps.

[yfin]

Err Omotesando - not sure why you are having a go at me. Everything I have said here you seem to agree with:


Maybe the theory was discussed - but certainly not backed up by the person making the claims that you can lose power using premium. I should also say that BP said the claims were wrong.
You don't agree with what Mr Will said in that other thread. Secondly, you say BP didn't make any "marketing" mistakes in their response to me. So not sure exactly what your beef is with me. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Fr3aKi3]

There was an episode of Fifth Gear which tested the theory on fuel, i'll have to have a look around and dig it up.

From memory they tested a few different cars, one being a small hatchback and the other was a WRX (possibly sti). They test ULP, PULP and 98 PULP in all cars. Their findings was that in the hatchback the use of PULP and 98PULP made no difference in HP or torque, although they did not mention anything about the power/torque curves which may have improved.

The Subaru on the other hand did lose power when ULP was used instead of the recommended PULP. Once 98 PULP was used there was a increase of HP when compared to using the reccommended PULP. I think the test was done with BP Fuel as well.

The only thing is that the test is a britsh one, so their conditions are different.

[as001]

I don't think anyone here even owns a v6 Accord don't why everyones firing up for!?! either way u could barely feel the difference cos its an auto as long as your fuel econ is better running a higher ron fuel other wise stick to 91 save few bucks at the pump enough said

[aaronng]

There was an episode of Fifth Gear which tested the theory on fuel, i'll have to have a look around and dig it up.

From memory they tested a few different cars, one being a small hatchback and the other was a WRX (possibly sti). They test ULP, PULP and 98 PULP in all cars. Their findings was that in the hatchback the use of PULP and 98PULP made no difference in HP or torque, although they did not mention anything about the power/torque curves which may have improved.

The Subaru on the other hand did lose power when ULP was used instead of the recommended PULP. Once 98 PULP was used there was a increase of HP when compared to using the reccommended PULP. I think the test was done with BP Fuel as well.

The only thing is that the test is a britsh one, so their conditions are different.
This is because the WRX was a turbo car. The more knock resistance you have, the more boost you can run.

[SiReal]

sorry didn't mean to fire up a battle. hehe... :P

[Alpine]

I don't think anyone here even owns a v6 Accord don't why everyones firing up for!?!

I do.. :wave:

[aaronng]

Quick Alpine, get your car out and test with 98 octane and 91 octane before I have to lock this thread up.

[thatdbeme]

I think there are accord V6 drivers on here i am one of them. I drive an 00 Accord V6 and in the manual its say it should run on 95RON.

My car runs best on Mobil 6000 or Shell 95. Not well on 98 ron or 91 ron.

[as001]

sorry didnt mean to offend the v6 owner's here

[EuroDude]

I drive an 00 Accord V6 and in the manual its say it should run on 95RON.


...thanks for clarifying - so it does recommend 95RON in the V6 manual (for the prev gen at least) ;)

[tamero]

It's the Whirlpool forum.

Whirlpool forum. Enough said!

[Alpine]

...thanks for clarifying - so it does recommend 95RON in the V6 manual (for the prev gen at least) ;)

But not for the current gen V6 - the 177kw one.

[EuroDude]

Strange how they went backwards to 91RON, considering premium is available almost everywhere now, and its not that much more expensive than 91RON anyway.

[jamchen]

well... different respond different to 91, 95 or 98 RON fuel... it all depends on the design of the car...
but i always believe that you get what u pay for.,.. there's must something that would make PULP a bit more deer than ULP.
we have three cars in the family... the euro and MDX all required 95 RON so we always fill up with 98 ( 98 ultimate most of the time) and one toyota camry V6 (98 model) which has been always on premium fuel since purchase ( 95 for the first 5 yrs and 98 later on) and the engine still responds very well..

[Omotesando]

Sorry YFIN - I thought you were taking a swipe at me before, if that wasn't the case then I do apologise ;) I actually read your suggestions to provide 'proof' a bit too seriously I guess.


Anyway, someone said their V6 runs better on 95ron but not 98ron. Is there a large difference seat of the pants? :P

[thatdbeme]

Sorry YFIN - I thought you were taking a swipe at me before, if that wasn't the case then I do apologise ;) I actually read your suggestions to provide 'proof' a bit too seriously I guess.


Anyway, someone said their V6 runs better on 95ron but not 98ron. Is there a large difference seat of the pants? :P

a little, the engine definately seem to run freely on 95 or 96 compared to 98, but if i cant find 95 i will always fill up with 98 rather than 91