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.

 

Lets wait for Honda Data to confirm this

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

People: please step away from the keyboards and calm down.
It's just gas.

 

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.

 

Here is a guide for no ethanol gas. Choose your state and find your city. http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=FL

 

Thank god for the ignore function.

 

I agree - I wouldn't want you to lose sleep over the fact that you have a disagreement over the internet.

 

Everyone on net is rocket scientist

 

Too true - Though I don't doubt some are, and I don't doubt some are really smart and knowledgeable about the topics at hand. But one thing is being smart and knowledgeable, and another is to provide people with false information and/or denying a fact, printed on paper that was handed over in the thread - that is a little puzzling to me as there's no clear reason for it.

 

I don't know why anybody bothers listening to this guy. It's clearly either that he has a complete inability to comprehend the english language, or that he simply can't allow facts to change his (flawed) opinion. I put him on my ignore (1 of 2 people on this site) and it's easier to just not even try to figure out his motivation or lack of logic.

 

Honda DOES recommend premium fuel, as well as 87, and 89 - did you also add the quote from the Owner's Guide and Owner's Manual to your ignore list?

Since I simply can't comprehend the english language, why don't you break this fact for me? Or wait, you said my opinion is flawed, is this an opinion? Please enlighten me.

"Use of unleaded gasoline 87 octane or higher is recommended." - 2017 CR-V Owner's Guide page 127

 

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/u-s-drivers-waste-2-1-billion-annually-premium-gasoline/

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/.../11/tech-101-octane-the-facts-and-the-fiction-behind-those-higher-priced-fuels/

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/to-save-money-on-gas-stop-buying-premium.html

http://www.whatcouldbegreener.com/142/fuel-octane-choosing-the-wrong-octane-will-cost-you/

https://static.ed.edmunds-media.com...ia.com/unversioned/img/pdf/premium.gasoline/premium.fuel.recommended.031816.pdf

https://static.ed.edmunds-media.com...media.com/unversioned/img/pdf/premium.gasoline/premium.fuel.required.031816.pdf

 

I put 91 in my Si because it's required, I put 87 in my CR-V because it's the cheapest of all the different gasoline octane levels they recommend and I didn't buy the CR-V for HP. The argument here started when it was said that honda does not recommend using premium in your CR-V, and they do recommend it, and other octanes they just don't require it.m, a key distinction. What I like about these articles, is that they understand the difference between required and recommended.

I don't agree with the fact that you don't get extra HP with 91, in some cars you so, and in others you don't. Early 00's J series you did but it wasn't required and engines wouldn't knock on 87. 10th Gen Civic was proven to have additional HP on 91 by Hondata and the TOV.

 

Here is the thing. Anybody can claim expertise on the web. We get that.

Here is the second thing. Anybody can find a source to support any position on the web. If you don't know that you have not explored the web much.

Both sides have presented their arguments. Both sides have posted sources. The rest of us will believe one side or the other or maybe even try higher grade fuel to see if mileage or performance changes.

I think this is a good time for the mods to lock this thread. If possible it would be a good idea to sticky the thread so new threads about this subject will not appear on a daily or weekly basis.

 

Why lock it, it's entertaining.

 

Claiming no expertise, I interpret the text in the manual, "87 Octane or higher recommended" as Honda recommends a minimum of 87 Octane fuel, not lower than 87 Octane. My S2000 says "91 Octane or higher", which similarly means don't put lower octane fuel in the vehicle. It's a matter of semantics and only a pair of lawyers would argue that Honda recommends higher octane fuel than what is required.

 

I agree. But you can't say that 93 octane is not recommended for use in your S2000. It's not required, which is different. About lower, there's no question that you shouldn't go lower.

 

Can you actually buy fuel with a lower octane rating than 87?

 

See above. Yes. In some areas. But you really have to be careful. That lower octane might be OK at higher altitudes. However if you then drive to a lower altitude area with that fuel still in your tank....

Also remember - gas stations aren't necessarily completely accurate in the mixing and dispensing of fuels. States (usually called weights and measures dept) are responsible for regulating this, but are typically more interested in making sure the quantity of fuel being dispensed is correct rather than the composition.

 

saw that link on vtec.net
i hope the tuners of hondata or whatever they are doing with the 1.5T can transfer over to the CRV
wouldn't mind 200 AWHP and torque

 

Not to mention that the Hondadata graphs from that link (can't believe I even wasted my time any more on this utterly ridiculous discussion anyway) tell me that I would not trust them. If you look at the dyno sheets (digital of course) the two curves are WAY too similar other than being offset for me to believe that the "increase" is the result of the ECU throwing more timing into the ignition as a result of the knock sensor seeing less with the 91 RON fuel. Ignition timing is not a linear function, and both ignition and fuel mapping is modified (plus and minus) differently all through the rpm range. What you will typically see when this happens under honest and true control situations is that the torque curve (and all I care about is torque, since hp is simply a function of torque and rpm) will actually change. This means that you should expect the curves to actually overlap or "merge" at some ranges, and there should be much more pronounced differences to the curves across the range. The fact that the graphs shown so closely resemble the exact curves, but are really simply offset, tell me that it's very likely that somebody has monkeyed around with the dyno in order to prove their own point.

More specifically it's like this. A dyno is nothing more than a wheel that adds resistance and measures a value, controlled by a computer. Given that the graphs lack the basic industry standard telemetry such as barometric pressure, temperature, etc - there is nothing there that I would trust - particularly since it's coming from a company with a vested interest to sell you their products. I can easily manipulate the dyno to tell you that an engine is making an extra 10% torque just by setting a few variables.

Furthermore, the entire argument is yet again BS. Nobody is saying there is any harm (other than to your wallet) in putting premium fuel in a car designed for regular. However, everybody that is unbiased and not trying to sell their own product (meaning virtually every single independent testing organization in existence that has ever looked at this) has repeatedly said higher octane in cars not designed for higher octane yields nothing other than extra cost. And yet even more to the point - if somebody were dumb enough to take the highly questionable and certainly biased information from this particular tuner vendor at face value, even when they themselves acknowledge that Hondas chief engineer stated that there were "no possible gains from using premium fuel", it's even then still a dumb argument - since at least from a fuel economy point of view, the math is still broken.

I really do with this thread were locked.

 

Should have mentioned one other point of data about the (suspect) claims made by Hondadata.

In their own words, they claimed achieving a 12hp increase by doing nothing other than reseting the ECU, and then running 91 octane fuel. For some reason which I can only attribute to a typo on their part, they then claimed a "real gain" of 4-5hp.

So, factory engine, factory tune, no modifications, and depending on what part of their statement you want to accept, between a 4-12hp change purely resulting from the engine it can add more timing due to 91 octane pump gas.

BS.

I run race vehicles all over the country. We have internationally known builders that we work with to finalize tunes on our race bikes - and different ones for the cars.

In order to get 4-5hp above what we can get on "regular" fuel, we have to go to full race fuel, meaning VP MR12 Oxygenated fuel. MR12 does a bunch of stuff, and has more energy per unit than 91 octane unleaded - by far. So, we have to make big adjustments to both ignition and fuel mapping, and THEN use a fuel FAR more potent than 93 octane - to get less of an increase than Hondadata claims they get just by clearing the ECU and putting 91 octane in it. MR12 is roughly $30/gallon retail.

Balderdash. Do you REALLY think people all over the country would be paying $30/gallon - or even a bit less with volume discounts - if we could get the same performance increases running 91 or even 93? And autotune logic simply isn't effective enough either.

 

So, if you are running 87 octane, 10% ethanol, and you get a fill up with 87 octane no ethanol will your power increase, mpg increase?

 

Interesting question.

The answer is probably yes - but in such a small percentage that you won't be able to measure it. 10% of the fuel formulation will generate fewer BTUs, but you'd only get the benefit of the 10% of the difference.

However, to take it a bit further..... If you refuel 2 vehicles in very high humidity environments to 50% full of their fuel tank capacity, the Ethanol blend will suck up some of that humidity and further dilute the fuel. But again, probably not that much.

 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-honda-civic-1-5t-dyno-suggests-underrated-horsepower-torque/

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=1299354

Same engine, it may work on the 2017 CRV

 

The motor being under-rated? Sure.

10hp from 91 octane? Only in an lsd induced dream. The fact that they're making that kind of statement (which, btw contradicts pretty much everywhere else on the planet) makes me immediately disregard anything they say.

 

Higher octane gas is always a good idea when you have a turbo vehicle. Depend ng on intake air temperature, boost level and timing, having higher octane helps to reduce premature detonation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

"Higher octane gas is always a good idea when you have a turbo vehicle. Depending on intake air temperature, boost level and timing, having higher octane helps to reduce premature detonation."


That is simply NOT TRUE.

 

Especially when an engine is designed to run regular like the CRV 1.5 t is..

 

It's not the mileage or the spunk that I care about with this octane rating discussion, but the detergent in the higher octane rating, such as shells top-tier 93 octane, than what the other ratings have. Any thoughts on that one people ?

 

Not true. If you're buying Top Tier gas, all octane levels contain detergent and additives. Just buy the stuff that Honda recommends.

 

I believe the higher detergent levels are to clean out the added octane busters.

 

SR45 sounds like a salesman for Shell....... LOL .. I used to put SUNOCO 95 in everything i drove until i learned a little.... I will reiterate the knowledgeable ones on this thread. Higher octane is a WASTE if your engine is not designed for using it! I hate that some newer vehicle owners will buy into the mythical advice that it IS beneficial!