what gas to use?

[Yellow Rose]

If they are all the same, why then is Amoco/BP Premium crystal clear in color like water, and others are not?

If you distill any long-chain light hydrocarbon under the right conditions, it will come out clear. Additionally, different refineries use different processes - hydrocracking, cat cracking, vis breaking, vacuum reforming, flexi coking, delayed coking, etc. - according to what finished product they want depending on what kind of crude oil is the feedstock for that refinery.

Shell used to have a practice of dyeing their medium octane light pink and their high octane light purple. The only reason was grade identification. With a device called a gravitometer, the subtle variations in gasoline specific gravity can be determined, thus negating the need for dye.

 

[MJK]

As a side item, unleaded in Europe is dyed green (presumably for differentiation from Diesel).

/Cliff Claven

 

[Joel]

Mr. Comey, from AAA, said that when a car maker "recommends" premium fuel it is not the same as requiring it.

"If you shoot truth serum into the veins of car engineers," he said, "they'll admit that 'recommended' means you don't really need it."

This is the quote from Ken's NYtimes article.

With this argument, the recommended 91 octane for the NSX isn't really "needed."

I don't know, I still do it for consistency I guess.

 

[nsxtasy]

Maybe you should re-read my post pay attention next time, don't put words into my mouth.

I DID read your post carefully. Several times.

I said using over 91 on stock nsx compression is a waste, and may cause power loss.

Yes, that is exactly what you said.

The problem with your wording is this: Based on that statement, if someone has a choice of using premium fuel with 93 octane versus using mid-grade fuel with 89 octane, you are saying he should use the 89 octane, because the 93 "is a waste, and may cause power loss". Based on what you wrote, you are advising people not to use premium fuel that is higher than 91 octane, even though that is the only kind of premium fuel sold in most of the United States. And that is NOT an accurate recommendation.

NOW do you understand what is wrong with the way you worded your statement?

Of course less than 91 will hurt performance, no one is disputing that.

That is true - but, unlike your previous statement, one would assume the opposite recommendation (93 instead of 89) from this statement, than from your previous statement.

Originally posted by the New York Times
Mr. Comey, from AAA, said that when a car maker "recommends" premium fuel it is not the same as requiring it.

"If you shoot truth serum into the veins of car engineers," he said, "they'll admit that 'recommended' means you don't really need it."

Originally posted by Joel
With this argument, the recommended 91 octane for the NSX isn't really "needed."

With regard to the NSX and Honda's recommended fuel, the owner's manual is very clear about it. I don't have it in front of me, but what it says is basically something along these lines:

Honda recommends 91 octane or higher fuel for the NSX. If you use less than 91 octane, the car's electronics will adjust for the lower octane in order to avoid harming the engine, but the performance of the car will be less than with 91 octane or above.

That's not an exact quote, but that's what it says. So, going back to the article from the Times, Honda indeed does not require premium fuel, but they do tell you the consequences (lower performance) of not using it. That's not exactly the same as saying that "you don't really need it" - especially on a high-performance sports car.

 

[satan_srv]

The problem with your wording is this: Based on that statement, if someone has a choice of using premium fuel with 93 octane versus using mid-grade fuel with 89 octane, you are saying he should use the 89 octane, because the 93 "is a waste, and may cause power loss". Based on what you wrote, you are advising people not to use premium fuel that is higher than 91 octane, even though that is the only kind of premium fuel sold in most of the United States. And that is NOT an accurate recommendation.

You're on crack, and once again putting words into my mouth. Anyone that misreads my statement like that and makes assumptions is an idiot, you're really reaching on this. I said don't buy over 91, never did not say buy less than 91. At this rate you'll be claiming I said I invented the internet too.

Jlindy says so should I run regular? Your response would have been more appropriate to say no what satan means is that minimum = 91 but there is no need to buy higher than 91 if possible. But no, you had to be THAT guy.

 

[jlindy]

You're on crack, and once again putting words into my mouth. Anyone that misreads my statement like that and makes assumptions is an idiot, you're really reaching on this. I said don't buy over 91, never did not say buy less than 91. At this rate you'll be claiming I said I invented the internet too.

Jlindy says so should I run regular? Your response would have been more appropriate to say no what satan means is that minimum = 91 but there is no need to buy higher than 91 if possible. But no, you had to be THAT guy.

Not that I am taking anyone's side on this matter, but my problem is that I have 89 Octane or 93 Octane, and not 91. (at most places I go) It sounds like 93 is my only choice because I have to have at least 91.

 

[satan_srv]

Not that I am taking anyone's side on this matter, but my problem is that I have 89 Octane or 93 Octane, and not 91. (at most places I go) It sounds like 93 is my only choice because I have to have at least 91.

yes, 93 is the way to go in your situation.

 

[nsxtasy]

You're on crack, and once again putting words into my mouth.

No, I'm not. I am referring to the statement that YOU made. YOUR words.

Anyone that misreads my statement like that and makes assumptions is an idiot

Well, that's what your statement said, and at least one other NSXprime member took it literally. I don't think he's an idiot. He read your statement the way you wrote it. If you don't like the way he read it, you have only yourself to blame.

I said don't buy over 91, never did not say buy less than 91.

Yes, but most of us have a choice between 93 and 89. Saying "don't buy over 91" MEANS "buy 89". We both know that's not what you meant, but that is what you said.

But no, you had to be THAT guy.

No, YOU'RE the one who is "THAT guy" - writing something that was wrong, then apparently arguing that you didn't mean what you say, but arguing with people who read what you wrote.

Why don't you just STOP ARGUING AND LET IT GO, and we can both agree on my previous recommendation:

As long as you use premium unleaded fuel in the NSX, you'll be fine.

Okay?

 

[Yellow Rose]

As long as you use premium unleaded fuel in the NSX, you'll be fine.

I think that's pretty much what I said yesterday.

 

[satan_srv]

No, I'm not. I am referring to the statement that YOU made. YOUR words.

Well, that's what your statement said, and at least one other NSXprime member took it literally. I don't think he's an idiot. He read your statement the way you wrote it. If you don't like the way he read it, you have only yourself to blame.

Yes, but most of us have a choice between 93 and 89. Saying "don't buy over 91" MEANS "buy 89". We both know that's not what you meant, but that is what you said.

No, YOU'RE the one who is "THAT guy" - writing something that was wrong, then apparently arguing that you didn't mean what you say, but arguing with people who read what you wrote.

Why don't you just STOP ARGUING AND LET IT GO, and we can both agree on my previous recommendation:

As long as you use premium unleaded fuel in the NSX, you'll be fine.

Okay?

I'm quite alright with the fact that I know what I was saying, and you misinterpreted it. I speak Canadian after all.

 

[neilh]

I came across some information some may find useful about gasoline.


www.toptiergas.com

NSXtasy posted an article on this on 8/2/04 also, it's worth a read.

 

[liftshard]

Most gas comes out of the same tanker.

What the gas stations don't tell you is that they may all be buying from the same major wholesaler. The big oil cos have dominance in particular regions and they wholesale to everybody. It's just economically a better idea. So, all gas in an area may be Exxon stuff. For the premium sh!t, with the additives, that may be proprietary, but they don't sell that much of that gas compared to the plain jane.

The only recommendation I can make is to NEVER buy 89 octane unless every gas station in existence is out of premium. No car that I can identify is engineered to use 89 octane gas. They're all either 87 or 91. Putting 89 in a car made for 87 is like burning money except without the fun of lighting matches. Yes, people do it all the time, think they're getting more "gas" or power or being better to their car. Nope. They're getting scammed. They pay a dime for that extra 2 octane and then we pay a dime more for 4 extra beyond what they get. Ripoff.

I gas up at Sunoco because they are the only station in the area that carries 91 and 91 is cheaper than 93. If I could get the compression ratio upped or ignition advanced and the fuel remapped, THEN, yes, I'd seek out 93 or higher octane solutions. But, stock, the NSX develops maximum performance from 91 octane fuel. Anything more won't benefit you. I will buy 93 when there is no Sunoco nearby. But, Shell, Exxon, Mobil; it doesn't seem to make a freakin bit of difference. I just don't buy Crown.

 

[nsxtacey]

I use sunoco which has 94 octane. I seem to get more mileage out of it too :smile:

 

[NSX2398]

For those who aren't satisfied with the debate so far .. here's a previous thread on the same topic http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51055.

I'm surprised Ken didn't link to it when discussing what the owner's manual says .. since I believe he was actually quoting from it in this previous thread. Curiously enough, in both threads he gets into a heated debate on interpretation of wording in both the manual and other people's comments.... deja vu all over again although the comments from the AAA guy this time would seem to validate the previous minority view that premium, while recommended .. is not actually required... although the context of the remarks (performance vs durability) is not at all clear.

 

[MCM]

AndyVecsey
Suspended
Nailed it on 7-9-04

"Actually, all base gasolines are identical......it is the additives that are the different."

The trucks pull up and get a deferent additive packet tossed in.
That's my understanding anyway.
(This has nothing to do with octane ratings though, not enough is not good.
Too much is kind of a waste of $$.) Sidenote: not everyone rates octane the same just to make things confusing. :biggrin:

 

[Cairo94507]

Can't we all just get along and stop the name calling? I am quite sure that everyone participating on this forum is really interested in what is best for our cars and trying to empart some information to help others. Some just express themselves better than others.

 

[nsxtasy]

I'm surprised Ken didn't link to it when discussing what the owner's manual says ..

You're surprised that in posts I wrote in July 2004, I didn't link to a topic that was created in May 2005?

Incidentally, if you want to see what kind of gas NSX owners actually do use, click here. (That poll was created since the current topic - this one - was under discussion.)