2.3-octane question
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Re: 2.3-octane question
No. It will not give you horsepower gains. You can ruin your motor that way if I'm not mistaken. Its harder to burn compared to 87 if you're low comp. You'd only want 92 if you're High Compression because High Compression tends to detonate, so therefore, 92 will need to be used.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Re: 2.3-octane question
No. It will not give you horsepower gains. You can ruin your motor that way if I'm not mistaken. Its harder to burn compared to 87 if you're low comp. You'd only want 92 if you're High Compression because High Compression tends to detonate, so therefore, 92 will need to be used.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
The ONLY reason you should use premium in your motor is if you are tuned for it (running forced induction).
Just stick to 87 and add some injector cleaner every once in a while and you'll be fine.
Last edited by Bwill9886; 11-28-2010 at 11:39 PM.
#5
Re: 2.3-octane question
No. It will not give you horsepower gains. You can ruin your motor that way if I'm not mistaken. Its harder to burn compared to 87 if you're low comp. You'd only want 92 if you're High Compression because High Compression tends to detonate, so therefore, 92 will need to be used.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
95% of the people I see say (higher octane burns slower) which is False, it is only less resistance to knock. If it burned slowerrr why would you want to use it in a forced induction high revvinggg engine where combustions takes place so many times in a second? It would be worse because it wont have as much time to completely burn which would result in less power output.
#6
Re: 2.3-octane question
octane rating has nothing to do with the speed of combustion of gasoline. It is merely a scale that rates a fuels resistance to detonation when compared to a mixture of iso-octane and heptane (hydrocarbon chains). Essentially, the resistance to detonation of the fuel in question is measured against the resistance to detonation of the mixture. For example the detonation resistance of a gasoline that is equivalent to a mixture containing 87% iso-octane is 87 octane gasoline. But that number is only a comparison and does not have anything to do with the chemical composition of the fuel in question. Fuels with an octane number greater than 100 are more resistant to detonation than pure iso-octane.
And to the poster above me, not all forced induction engines are high-revving. All modern diesel engines are turbocharged, but most operate below 3500 RPM.
To answer the original question. Burning 92 octane fuel in an engine designed to run on a lower octane gasoline will not affect it's operation at all.
And to the poster above me, not all forced induction engines are high-revving. All modern diesel engines are turbocharged, but most operate below 3500 RPM.
To answer the original question. Burning 92 octane fuel in an engine designed to run on a lower octane gasoline will not affect it's operation at all.
#7
Re: 2.3-octane question
[QUOTE=chikin pickle;44108902]
And to the poster above me, not all forced induction engines are high-revving. All modern diesel engines are turbocharged, but most operate below 3500 RPM.
QUOTE]
True, I just threw that out there meaning most high performance engines are going to run higher than 87 whether it be high compressed or forced induction or spray. If someone is going to spend tons of money on a motor theyre going to run 92 to reduce any chance of pinging, to an extent anyway. I'm a diesel mechanic so I know they dont rev out high
And to the poster above me, not all forced induction engines are high-revving. All modern diesel engines are turbocharged, but most operate below 3500 RPM.
QUOTE]
True, I just threw that out there meaning most high performance engines are going to run higher than 87 whether it be high compressed or forced induction or spray. If someone is going to spend tons of money on a motor theyre going to run 92 to reduce any chance of pinging, to an extent anyway. I'm a diesel mechanic so I know they dont rev out high
Trending Topics
#9
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: so.ca
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2.3-octane question
No. It will not give you horsepower gains. You can ruin your motor that way if I'm not mistaken. Its harder to burn compared to 87 if you're low comp. You'd only want 92 if you're High Compression because High Compression tends to detonate, so therefore, 92 will need to be used.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
92 will not detonate before 87. Thats all it does is resistance to knock. 87 is good enough since you're low compression.
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: BR, LA, USA
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2.3-octane question
hate to say it.....our hondas won't react well to the higher octane gases simply because they are built with economy in mind hence the low compression engines........just do your tune up items per manufacture's recommended schedule.....and use the injector cleaners sparingly (i use once per year).....that should keep your car from breaking...barring accidents
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2.3-octane question
People can say "When switching from to 89 after using 87 for such a long time, I feel more of a kick to it".
All piles of crap.
I've used 87 on my F23A1 (Requires 85 at the minimum) and when I tried to test out a full tank of 89. It didn't help squat. It actually made my MPG drop and cost me an extra 6 dollars.
Nus_Dog had the answer you need.
All piles of crap.
I've used 87 on my F23A1 (Requires 85 at the minimum) and when I tried to test out a full tank of 89. It didn't help squat. It actually made my MPG drop and cost me an extra 6 dollars.
Nus_Dog had the answer you need.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
unknown0001
All Motor / Naturally Aspirated
12
05-28-2005 08:12 AM