Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

Fuel Type

H

Hondata76

Members
Messages
31
Reaction score
3
Location
Bucks
Car
Accord 2.4 Auto
Hi All,

any one care to provide me with the recommended fuel type for the 2.4 CL9 Accords? unfortunately mine did not come with the owners handbook but when i open my fuel flap it says Super or Premium unleaded, minimum 95 RON. does this mean this model is mapped to 97-99 RON standard but a minimum of 95 could be used? What does the owners manual say? i did run a search on the forumn before starting this topic but could not find anything relating to this..
 
This mean that the engine for optimal operation in all conditions requires 95 octane fuel. If you will fill your car with any higher octane fuel you will not gain anything, but still anything to loose.
The fuel octane number indicates the detonation point, so higher octane number the more compression the fuel can withstand before detonating itself.
higher is the compression ratio, higher must be the octane number
 
Thanks Jan, i do understand how higher octane fuel works but just wondering what the owners manual 'recommend' for the 2.4's. as already confirmed, the fuel flap says Super / Premium Unleaded minimum 95 RON so my question is, Is 95 RON the 'recommended' RON or the minimum RON one can run in the engine but not the recommended? if so what is the recommended Super /Premium ron 97 or 99? i believe the owners manual should state this. My previous Lexus IS300 and GS430 recommended 96RON or higher Fuel so i always run 97 -99 fuels in the Lex.
 
If it says super, then put super in it for best performance and flexibility.
You can run it on 95, but you'll find it pulls the timing to prevent knock.

My old Subaru (N/A 3.0 flat 6, 272hp) was far nicer to drive on Tesco 99 or V-power as the engine was designedoing for premium unleaded.
Run it on regular and it'd feel like it had had its spuds cut off, and wasn't as smooth.

Possibly unrelated, but in the 90k I had it (bought at 50k), mine never needed replacement lamda sensors, which was a common issue with them.
Then again, mine almost always had V-power or Tesco 99 in it. It would never get lower grade fuel if I could help it.
 
There is an advantage though if the car has a particularly high compression ratio.

At 10.5:1, I'd imagine you'd see a similar improvement to that in my subaru at 10.7:1.

Have a quick watch of this: https://youtu.be/hpVHLTRrxCw

There's a definite advantage with an 'Asian 2.4l car' which I'm ***uming is a Honda with a K24. Couldn't be much else?

Took a few tanks of Super (or an ECU adaptation reset) for my car to get back to where it was on super, after having had a tank of regular.
 
The Asian 2.4l is a Toyota engine.

As the chap says do your own tests.i did,i used 95 supermarket and tesco 99 and 112ron lpg.in my cl9
I Only noiticed that my mpg was slightly better on ron 99.and on lpg rev pick up slower.but thats a negative effect of lpg.but was less noticeably when going up through the gears

How ever on my 93viggen.it was like night and day using ron 99.it would pink on 95 and was a slow car without 99
 
Could well be down ton how good various management systems are.
Trionic's very good at knock detection, which could be why it'd pull timing and boost in the Viggen.

Was night and day in the subaru too.
Maybe the k24's are a little more basic?

Do agree that you have to test it out both ways on every car and make a decision for yourself.

For me, my subaru would return a couple of mpg more on super, which would negate the cost difference at the pump. Was a win-win for me, but you could well be paying money for nothing in a car that doesn't benefit from it greatly, especially when you consider that super has less calorific content due to the addition of octane boosters.

I had a dirt bike 15 years ago (DRZ400) that would perform worse on super than it would regular.
 
There's a fifth gear YouTube vid comparing the differences with fuel octane on a mk5 golf gti on a rolling road. If it's to be believed there was a measured increase in horsepower
 
Think there'll always be a benefit from the advanced timing on turbocharged petrols with higher octane fuel.
 
ukcl9 said:
I won't worry that much.chances are your car has been running on supermarket fuel since new.
Click to expand...
Yes you might be right but if we are not using the recommended fuel I am guessing the engine will not be running at its full potential. I know 95RON will run fine but was wondering what the hand book suggests in terms of if 97 or 99 RON was the best Super/Premium to use. sure someone on this forum should have the handbook??

Goodluckmonkey said:
If it says super, then put super in it for best performance and flexibility.
You can run it on 95, but you'll find it pulls the timing to prevent knock.

My old Subaru (N/A 3.0 flat 6, 272hp) was far nicer to drive on Tesco 99 or V-power as the engine was designedoing for premium unleaded.
Run it on regular and it'd feel like it had had its spuds cut off, and wasn't as smooth.

Possibly unrelated, but in the 90k I had it (bought at 50k), mine never needed replacement lamda sensors, which was a common issue with them.
Then again, mine almost always had V-power or Tesco 99 in it. It would never get lower grade fuel if I could help it.
Click to expand...
Which 3.0 NA did you have? was under the impression the only 3.0 NA available was the 245 bhp from the legacy?
 
That's the one. 272 with a full exhaust and a cosworth panel filter.

Legacy spec B manual wagon.

 
30bhp gain is impressive for just exhaust and panel filter change. or maybe Subaru were not truthful about the bhp figures and it made more to begin with.. i did consider those aswell in saloon but the looks of the Accord and fact that Accord was a FWD compared to a possible complicated AWD for the age of car i was looking to buy swayed me to the Honda. Anyway since the fuel flap says Supreme/Premium i will have to run 97-99 like i did in both my Lexus's . I prefer Esso 97 to Shell 99. found Lexus run better on Esso.
 
I think subaru may have underplayed them from the start and the standard exhaust is very restrictive on them too. I had my system made in 3" with 2.5" pipes from the split to the tailpipes with absorption type ****lers and resonator.

The motor's very honda-like with the AVCS heads, gets to a sniff under 4k, swaps cam lobes, squats and gets a shift on. Really free revving and will wail up to 7.5k without the power tailing off at all.
Wasted behind the 5-speed as they drop off the cam, but great for a thrash with a 6 speed manual.

I bought mine 6 years ago now wit has really low miles. If you don't keep the tread depth on the tyres within 0.1mm or each other on identical tyres, they kill the centre diff. I used to have to change tyres as a set, and hunt for partworns with the right tread depth every time I got a big puncture.
Rotating wheels front to back every 3 months became part of my maintenance routine, and it was still perfect at 129k when I sold it.

Unfortunately they don't all get the attention, so a high miler is trouble waiting to happen.
 
Handbook for my 2004 2.4 Accord just says it is designed for use on Premium or Super Unleaded with a RON of 95 or higher. Basically 95 or higher is fine. It states lower than 95 RON may cause more tapping noise or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top