I guess I should elaborate on my earlier response. I don't have any information on the newest Accord(2008), but on the previous version(2003-2007 V6), Honda set it up to run on regular gas(in the U.S.) for government certification and for advertising purposes. However, the engine management system was designed to allow approximately 10 HP more to be produced when premium gas was used--the knock sensor allowed the timing to advance as needed, and maybe some other things. The reason for this(according to the Honda engineering staff in published articles at the time) was the company's interest in being equal to or better than the then new Nissan Altima V6 in performance. Whether they continued this in the new Accord, I do not know.
CVCC. That 79 Civic I had was a great car. [/QUOTE] I have its son, an '83. Compression ratio is 9.2:1 and it runs fine on regular and is getting 40+ mpg in mixed driving. JT
Engine knocking as a result of higher compression ratios is a trade mark of hor rod engineering, which Hondas is a opponent. Honda sport cars may require higher octane fuel, but that's for engines with smaller displacements designed to compete with those of larger sizes. Accords arent meant to be raced, anyway. I am dissapointed, however, at the new Accords fuel efficiency. Now about fuel quality. Within different brands, mpg is a crude, but good, indicator of fuel quality. The ablity to burn completely and thus to generate more power also reduces wear and tear on the cylinders caused by unburnt fuel washing away the protective oil film. Not to mention carbon deposites and other nasty stuffs.
Hello everyone, Thanks for all the input. I'll have to consider the idea of the 3 tankfulls of premium, but wouldnt one tankfull be enough for the car to show a difference if any? I know Shell regular is a good gas to use and I think it has detergents and additives as far as I know. I know around here it has 10% ethanol, not sure if that means much. What would the additives or detergents mean for the engine anyway and how would I know if Shell had these things in their gas? I'm in New England if that means anything. Thanks, Al
I used to use grocery store gas. I had a Lexus ES that I drove from 125K to 175K miles. In the middle of all that, I learned about Top Tier Gas--Shell, in particular. I ran a few months with Shell premium, and noticed quickly enough that my gas mileage went up noticeably. My fuel cost per mile went down, even though Shell gas cost more *and* I was using their premium stuff--with VPower, their extra cleaners. After a few months I went back to regular gas--but stuck with Shell. My gas mileage didn't change--not better, not worse. I was even more ahead in fuel cost per mile now that I was buying 87 octane instead of 93 octane. Shell gas, and I presume all Top Tier fuels, keeps the fuel system and combustion chambers clean. For many reasons, all of that is necessary for better fuel efficiency. If you're using a gas that doesn't have a good additive package, your fuel system will clog up--injectors won't spray well, combustion chamber can get carbon in it (esp. if it's an older car), etc. You can regularly use a good gas, or you can pay a bit of attention to things and use a bottle of something like Techron in your gas tank every now and then.
Shell gasoline is fine, Alfred...don't worry, and use the regular unleaded. You will not see a difference in performance with the new 2008 Accord that we both have. Shell *does* have detergents and additives, so rest assured you engine is being cleaned with it. If you want to increase *performance* of your Accord, I recommend getting used to the different drive modes. I drive using 1,2, and *D3* especially, which will make your car seem like it has a new engine in it. "Auto", or "D" on the gears, is extremely smooth and made for family driving. However, when I do the different gears manually, my car is like *woah* and comes alive. Plus, it never gets anywhere close to redline, so there's a lot of room to play around in. Try it...you'll like it. Peace, Polfus
Hi Polfus, Do you mean to start off in 1 and drive until lets say 4000 rpms and then go to 2 and then D3 after sufficient rpms there? Occasionally though if I am coming into a highway exit and I need to stop more fast than usual I might throw it into D3 and brake as an extra measure. I sometimes use D3 and then move into D if i am going faster because it allows for more revs, but I havent really tried the manual mode. I was affraid that would put too much wear and tear on the engine, but i'll check it out. The D driving is "family" mode you are right about that, smoother than you'd expect. I'll have to try out the "Sport" mode of driving one of these days. The redline in the 2008 Accord being at 7100 rpms gives plenty of room for reving. I like to shift with a manual transmission car at 4500-5000 rpms so I'll have to try it with this. I used to use D3 in my 2005 Accord EX so i'll have to try it in here. Al
macpherson strut suspension!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! except that when people say a modern honda has been cheapened so much that there's no more "give", i say that's not correct - there's a ton more "give" to be had in pursuit of lower costs. plastic brake pistons are just one example.
Regular Shell gasoline is my fuel of choice for my Honda too. It gives better mpg than Chevrons, which is not bad either. Using different gears in an automatic transmission does nothin for performance. But the habit of doing so reduces stresses on the drivetrain and prolongs its life significantly. For me i use 2 when driving in a parking lot, or within an apartment complex or a subdivision. That saves the trans from unnecessary upshift/downshift. I use D3 when driving in downtown streets or in an area with many 4- way stops. And D4 in normal city and highway driving. My 89 Accord doesn't have 1 and i have no idea how it''ll work. Important: You can always shift back and forth between D3 and D4 while the tires is rolling. But shifting to and from P, R, N, 2, 1 (no letter D in those!!!) demands a complete stop (with the engine at idle) or you'll risk wrecking a good transmission. Also keep your right hand off the shifting lever when the car is moving, accidental shifting is bad!!! Finally, if you just want convenience and nothing else, Honda's D4 will handle everything just fine. Cheers!!
Is that a negative or a positive? How about just saying that there is not much room for Honda to lower the production costs of their cars without significantly impacting their reliability or the impression of their cars? That seems to be the driving issue as consumers want to get in a car and not feel that it's cheaply made, and that it's reliable. I would say that the Japanese car companies seem to understand that better than the US car companies as I still see US cars that look cheaply made. Then there's the reliability issue. While the US car companies have come a long way in the last decade I'm not sure they are the equal of the Japanese yet. That's not to say they can't do it, but I always get the feel that the accountants have more control in the US companies than the engineers and designers.
I like to use D4 or D for regular city and hwy driving. I use D3 in slower speeds around town. I usually only use 2 in snowy conditions when the road is not that well plowed. Gear 1 I have usually only used in really deep snow when the car was getting stuck and I had to get out of snow. As far as the manual shifting, well we all know this car could use the sequential sport shifter, maybe next revention. As far as manual shifting though I tend to use D3 and go into D or D4 when the rpms get too high. I have on occasion started off the starting line in 1 and then move to 2 and then D3. You really don't need to be stopped to use 1-2-D3 etc, the only difference is that you have to press the shift button if going from 1-2-D3, but not from D3-D4. Anyone else use the "manual ways?"
These decisions, like excrement, flow downhill <g>, i.e., Detroit won't change in any meaningful way until the execs decide they want to. This whole business started back in the 70's when inexpensive yet well made Japanese cars started to sell in significant numbers. The issue then was called "fit & finish", which Detroit hasn't really addressed yet IMHO.
Just how bad can they be? Porsche has used McPherson struts from the beginning (1963) on their 911 series (including the '69 911 I owned years ago) and continue to use them in 2008 models. http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/12/2008-porsche-911-gt2-introduction-suspension-technology/ http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_reviews/porsche/porsche-911-turbo.htm
they're great for old farts that drive on freeways. but in terms of engineering fact, they don't keep the maximum contact patch on the road of both the steering wheels at all angles. that means they're not as good in the twisties. it's a geometry thing - turn the wheels to full lock and see how much tire is on the road on the inside tire - not much. the compromise compensation is wider tires, but that's not perfect for normal road use because they suck more gas and aquaplane more in the wet. wishbones allow better geometry but with a significantly higher component count. that means they cost a lot more, hence the move away. don't have the link handy, but somewhere on the web, there's data on the cornering g-force produced by a number of late 80's/early 90's hot hatches, rx7, gti, etc. the honda crx, with 4-wheel wishbones and the skinniest tires, can produce the highest g-force, hence the best cornering ability of the lot.
You did notice the link for the 2008 911 Turbo, didn't you? So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon.
did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the cr-v? or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.]
Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at the track. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123912 (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of production.) BMWs also carry a strut suspension. Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and implementation details play a significant role in delivered performance. My biggest gripe regarding strut vs wishbone front suspension is the taller bodywork and loss of visibility (of the road right in front of the car) with struts. IMHO, the new Civic is simply awful in this regard.
