Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 141 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With the 2017 CRV with the 1.5 turbocharged engine, do you need to run a Premium Gasoline as well?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
No. You do not. The use of high-octane fuel would be a waste of money, as the engine will not advance timing to a level to take advantage of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
If you can find it, spend your money on REAL gas (no ethanol). That might just be worth it.

I will give it a try, but due to the extra cost I think it will be false economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
You don't need to wait. No test has ever found premium fuel ever being worth it in any car not explicitly designed for it. There are other design considerations that must be made when advancing spark timing that go beyond the knock-resistance of the fuel. If a car's not going to be listed as requiring (or even suggesting) the use of said fuel, making those design adjustments is a needless waste of resource.

No doubt some tuners will produce high-octane ECU programs, and I imagine they won't knock, but they will almost certainly stress the engine in other ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
If you can find it, spend your money on REAL gas (no ethanol). That might just be worth it.

I will give it a try, but due to the extra cost I think it will be false economy.
I run 15% ethanol, and no amount of real gas' 2-5% mpg increase compares to the huge cash discount I get over real gas, which can be 40-60 cents per gallon at times. Too much right wing nastiness going around vs. corn ethanol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Lets wait for Honda Data to confirm this
I don't know what "Honda Data" you're suggesting people wait for. However, vehicle documentation and Honda themselves do not recommend premium fuel. If you're looking for more than that, not sure how to help.

I also won't get into what I hear are some uneducated people making inappropriate political statements unfounded by facts concerning the use and effects of Ethanol. Factually, Ethanol does have both some positive and negative traits. However, from an engineering perspective, unless a vehicle is explicitly designed to run a predefined Ethanol blend, Ethanol is a loser. It produces fewer BTUs per unit (it is less efficient) meaning it requires more Ethanol to generate the same energy as traditional fuel. It is inefficient in terms of its production, and it often compromises the food industry, as valuable crop space is allocated to Ethanol production simply because of subsidies - reducing crops available for food products. There are debates as to the impact on fossil fuel consumption, as there is a fair amount of fossil fuels required just for the distillation of products to formulate Ethanol. To what extent Ethanol is truly compromised by this is a matter of debate. But there is no debate that Ethanol is simply less efficient of a fuel. Also, Ethanol is highly susceptible to the accumulation of water/moisture in fuel compounds. This is why marine fuel depots sell "Ethanol Free" fuel. Ethanol can also be highly destructive to some types of gaskets and sealants. Finally, Ethanol produces 70% more "smog" or emissions than does the same quantity of non-Ethanol gasoline. Finally, Ethanol additive (E10) based fuel are less effective in terms of RON rating, meaning that they are less effective in preventing knock/ping/detonation particularly as temperatures increase.

Ethanol is basically alcohol. Yes, there are some "racing" engines that run on Alcohol. However, they are built to run explicitly on it, and consume FAR greater concentrations of fuel to make power. In carbuerated builds, jet sizes are often twice as large (or larger) in an Ethanol engine of the same displacement and "general power" as a gas motor.

These, btw, are non-political facts that any mature, rational person can easily validate. The opinions one might have resulting from the knowledge of these facts are debatable. But the facts are simply the facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
I run 15% ethanol, and no amount of real gas' 2-5% mpg increase compares to the huge cash discount I get over real gas, which can be 40-60 cents per gallon at times. Too much right wing nastiness going around vs. corn ethanol.
Ya, that nasty science can be so troublesome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
I don't know what "Honda Data" you're suggesting people wait for. However, vehicle documentation and Honda themselves do not recommend premium fuel. If you're looking for more than that, not sure how to help.
That's not true. Honda recommends "87 or higher". Saying that Honda "does not recommend premium fuel" is a misstatement. I think you probably meant to say that Honda doesn't require it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
That's not true. Honda recommends "87 or higher". Saying that Honda "does not recommend premium fuel" is a misstatement. I think you probably meant to say that Honda doesn't require it?
No, Honda does not recommend it. Honda recommends 87 or higher. Meaning essentially any retail fuel composition. CORRECTION; Any retail "quality" fuel composition with no more than 15% Ethanol, etc.

I did not say Honda recommends NOT using Premium.

Saying Honda "recommends Premium fuel" would mean that Honda actually, well, recommended using Premium fuel. And not regular. Or mid-grade.

Seems pretty simple to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
No, Honda does not recommend it. Honda recommends 87 or higher. Meaning essentially any retail fuel composition. CORRECTION; Any retail "quality" fuel composition with no more than 15% Ethanol, etc.

I did not say Honda recommends NOT using Premium.

Saying Honda "recommends Premium fuel" would mean that Honda actually, well, recommended using Premium fuel. And not regular. Or mid-grade.

Seems pretty simple to me.
But honda DOES recommend using premium fuel, they said "87 or higher" and that includes premium, it's recommended. They also recommend 87, 89...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
But honda DOES recommend using premium fuel, they said "87 or higher" and that includes premium, it's recommended. They also recommend 87, 89...
Dude, just stop. Again.

No, they do not. Period. Let me be more clear. EVERY SINGLE CAR MANUFACTURER ON THE PLANET that is designed to use regular fuel SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING.

To suggest that Honda does "recommend using Premium fuel" is simply dishonest. They do not recommend that you don't. I've been clear on that. They do not prohibit it. They essentially recommend you use ANY fuel of at least 87 RON, with no more than 15% ethanol content.

Mercedes Benz recommends you use Premium fuel. BMW does. Audi does. Subaru does for the XT 2.0 Forester.

This is a stupid discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Dude, just stop. Again.

No, they do not. Period. Let me be more clear. EVERY SINGLE CAR MANUFACTURER ON THE PLANET that is designed to use regular fuel SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING.

To suggest that Honda does "recommend using Premium fuel" is simply dishonest. They do not recommend that you don't. I've been clear on that. They do not prohibit it. They essentially recommend you use ANY fuel of at least 87 RON, with no more than 15% ethanol content.

Mercedes Benz recommends you use Premium fuel. BMW does. Audi does. Subaru does for the XT 2.0 Forester.

This is a stupid discussion.
Dude you have issues man. It says it on the manual, you really have issues. You don't like facts, you just like to shove down people's throats whatever you believe in, your interpretation is wrong. It's right there, on the manual. Page 25, page 533. It's also on the owner's guide, page 127. They RECOMMEND 87 or higher, higher includes premium. If you can't accept that, you have other issues to worry about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Dude you have issues man. It says it on the manual, you really have issues. You don't like facts, you just like to shove down people's throats whatever you believe in, your interpretation is wrong. It's right there, on the manual. Page 25, page 533. It's also on the owner's guide, page 127. They RECOMMEND 87 or higher, higher includes premium. If you can't accept that, you should continue to make stupid posts and contribute to making this post more stupid. Again, you have issues.
Pal, I'm done with you. That has to be the most stupid, illogical, nonsensical, positions I've seen yet. It basically says that Honda recommends you use fuel. I'm done with you. Welcome to ignore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Pal, I'm done with you. That has to be the most stupid, illogical, nonsensical, positions I've seen yet. It basically says that Honda recommends you use fuel. I'm done with you. Welcome to ignore.
Personally attacking people in the internet - you must be a successful person at whatever you do in life. "Use of unleaded gasoline 87 octane or higher is recommended." - 2017 CR-V Owner's Guide page 127. Yes, it's awesome, use any fuel and you're good, as long as it's within the recommended parameters, it's better than those that REQUIRE 91 or higher, like my Si where "or higher" is 93 octane, also recommended.

To say that using premium is not recommended is deceptful, that it is not required, that I agree with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
dont know whats going on but has anyone proven using higher octane results in better results for mpg and performance.
It has been proven by the Temple of VTEC on the Civic, not on the CR-V but they suspect it will be the same, it will be confirmed at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,592 Posts
Safe to say that most CR-V owners are happy to buy a vehicle that does not require using premium gasoline. I am. It is cost effective and runs well with the 87 octane from top tier brands. My mpg most usually meets and exceeds those posted on the window sticker. That makes me happy.

However, owners who enjoy fueling theirs with premium gasoline are certainly free to do so.
 
1 - 20 of 141 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top