I'm seriously considering buying an RSX Type-S and would like to know a couple of things from people who own one, or have owned one. I read somewhere that Acura recommends high octane fuel (91 if I remember correctly) be used for the Type-S model. My question is What happens if regular (87) octane is used instead? Can it cause any damage to the engine? Will it reduce the gas mileage, and by how much? The second question is what mileage per gallon are people actually getting with this car? The sticker shows 23 City / 31 Highway, but my experience with the
1990 Honda CRX Si that I used to own proved that actual mileage can vary quite a bit from what is reported on the sticker. I consistently got between 36 and 40 mpg with my CRX, depending on the ratio of city to highway miles, but the sticker said 28 City / 33 Highway.
We leased a 2006 RSX-S one month ago. The car has 900 miles or three tank fulls. So far the mileage has been 26, 28 and 29 mpg. The last on regular fuel with no noticeable difference in performance.
The question of using regular 87 octane fuel in Honda cars that are placarded as requiring premium (91 or higher octane) has been discussed many times in this group.
Honda (Acura) firmly recommends premium only except in cases of emergency, when regular can be used for a short period to get to a gas station and a fill up with premium. The car must be driven "gently" to reduce risk of detonation onset while regular is being used.
The issue here is compression ratio's and the very real risk of detonation if a high compression ratio engine runs on a fuel with too low an octane rating. There is no guarantee that detonation sensors (sometimes called "knock sensors") will catch detonation and retard fuel amounts and timing fast enough to save an engine when detonation occurs. Detonation can destroy pistons, rings, valves, connecting rods and rod bearings, basically trashing the engine and this damage can occur in fractions of a second.
The cost of an engine replacement or rebuild would far exceed the small additional cost of premium fuel over the life of the vehicle.
Finally, it would make no sense to put a fuel in a performance oriented car which would then require you to drive it extremely gently and at risk of blowing the engine at any moment.
I'll leave it to others to address the fuel mileage issue.
Joe McArthur wrote in news:Xns97E6E24F88F40ipdaily@216.168.3.44:
Correct.
87 is OK for other models. The Type-S MUST use 91.
All other models have a compression ratio of 9.8:1, which is already pretty high, but the Type-S has a whopping 11:1 ratio! ELEVEN to one, people! There was a time you never saw such a thing off the racetrack.
According to the Owner's Manual, it can cause pinging and possible engine damage.
Yes, if you run into a bad batch that tests below 87.
Nobody knows. I suspect mileage loss would be slight.
"James" wrote in news:y%Clg.63039$I61.23550@clgrps13:
Most Hondas are designed for 87 pump octane. The ones that are not have very high compression ratios. Does YOUR car require 91 AKI? Look up your Owner's Manual from Honda, here:
formatting link
do not need to log in to access the Owner's Manuals, and there are a few '07s available now). The easiest way to find things in your Owner's Manual is to ignore the Table of Contents and go straight to the Index at the back.
Is the performance advantage over the base model worth the additional expense, both up front and at the pump? Tough question, one I pondered for quite a while. My decision was helped by running into a low mileage base model at carmax, at a very low price. I had test driven a type s, and was almost ready to go with it, but test driving the base model pointed out something you can see in the specs, but might avoid seeing if you've got type-s lust - in normal day-to-day driving on normal city roads, there's virtually no difference in the performance.
Two other disadvantages of the type-s that're not immediately obvious - the low frequencies from the exhaust make a significant difference in cabin noise, and will cut your bass frequencies in your stereo. And the stereo in the type-s is much harder to upgrade - if you actually like the stock stereo, fine, but most music heads don't.
Mileage - my experience with my base model is that it's right exactly what the sticker says, not significantly less, and certainly not any better.
Thanks for the info. It looks like your mileage is improving as your engine breaks-in. It's promising to hear that you were able to use regular octane gas with no discernable problems. Although the guy who replied right after you paints a bleak picture of doing that.
"Keyser Soze" wrote in news:Kpxlg.6$ snipped-for-privacy@fe09.lga:
Ramapo wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Before posting I searched back through Google a bit but didn't see anything that answered my particular question.
I managed to locate my RSX brochure and in the fine print it says: "Gasoline with an octane number lower than 91 may be used, with reduced performance". If there is truly a significant risk of detonation/engine damage, as you describe below, then I should think that Acura would have a more stern warning out this than what is in the literature.
True enough but one of the main reasons I'm looking to replace the gas guzzling beast I am currently driving is to significantly lower my monthly fuel costs. Having to pay roughly 25 cents more per gallon for high octane in the tank of the RSX-S serously mitigates the improved miles per gallon I'd be getting with this car. I want a sporty, fun-to- drive car but also need to balance that with excellent fuel economy.
Point well taken and so maybe I need to take a closer look at the regular RSX model, or something else entirely.
We were sold on the S because of the attractive lease options offered and the resale value of the S type. The car is very desirable by a younger market segment. It should be within their price range after three years. When the lease expires there is a buyout option and the possibility of selling it at a higher price than that option. Or we could keep it! ;>)
The Type S is not worth it for most drivers. Through first and second, a base holds up pretty well in a race against a type S. Once you hit 3rd gear the S will start to pull. But if your not going to the track to race, and hopefully not street racing, you won't notice much of a difference. I think stock, the Type S is 1 second faster then the base. An entire second...wow. To the average driver, who cars. Are you the average driver?
Or you could buy a base, and add a CAI, header, exhaust, etc, and come out as fast as a Type S, have some extra money in your pocket, and save on gas.... Also the Type S burns oil, and has some tranny problems that don't seem to effect the base
Looks like you're getting pretty reasonable mileage there. What octane rating have you been using? A salesman at my Acura dealership was pretty convincing when he told me that he never puts anything higher than 89 octane in his Acura TL (not sure if that was the exact model or not) and never experiences any engine knocking or other problems. He says his model has the same "recommendation" of 91 or higher, as the RSX Type-S.
While I was at the dealership I test drove the base model, hoping I wouldn't notice that much of a difference from the S-type, so as to convince myself that I'd be happy with it. But unfortunately that was not to be. I felt that the performance of the Type-S I had driven before was significantly better and knew that if I bought the base model I'd always be wishing I'd have gotten the S-Type instead. So I ended up buying a Type-S. I'm pretty happy with my decision and hope that the car will be happy with
89 octane (haven't had to fill the tank yet). :)
"Al Slocumb" wrote in news:ThYng.5945$FQ1.1220@attbi_s71:
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.