Accord Euro ( Australia ) - what octane fuel

I am taking delivery of a new Accord Euro ( in Australia ) on July 13. The brochures say Premium Unleaded ( PULP) fuel should be used. I cannot get a
consistent answer from Honda dealers as to whether 95 or 98 octane PULP fuel should be used. My specific question is - have any tests been done to definitively establish whether 98 octane gives better performance and/or fuel economy than 95 octane. Does anyone have personal experience using the two fuels that they can share ?
Thanks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Jenkins wrote:

regarding performance, if you check out oil company web sites and drill down deep enough, you'll find that higher octanes do have a [slightly] higher calorific value. this means that you should get [slightly] better performance out of a higher octane gas. but the same web sites [correctly] go to great length to emphasize that octane numbers are about knock resistance, not performance, and will also say there is no discernible difference.
my view is that it's only worth bothering with higher octane if your engine has a knock sensor. if it does, the ecu can advance timing to take advantage of the higher octane's burn characteristics. if it doesn't have a knock sensor, stick to the octane it says in the owners manual. and even then, examine the economics. even if the lower octane does yield slightly less energy, i'll bet the percentage difference is less than the cost differentail for the higher grade.
i'd also say that it depends on the car. hondas are very gas quality agnostic. a french car i had in europe was /very/ gas sensitive. ridiculously so in fact. again, this points to using the cheaper stuff in the honda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

would surge if regular grade gas was used. No pinging, just a constant surge at low throttle settings.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

but afaik, the first fwd to use the now ubiquitous trans-axle configuration. up to that time, fwd's were either longitudinal engine/transmission or transverse engine with transmission dog-legged back underneath. the first took up too much room. the second was unreliable. had a number of other "firsts" too.
great car. went like a rocket. always sounded awful like it was about to throw its cam, but it stuck to the road like glue and would shame the kids in their new golf gti's. had a porsche-type synchro too. very interesting ride.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.