Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Acura TL Acura TL and Premium vs Regular Gas
78 messages, Last post on Aug 03, 2009 at 5:44 PM
You are in the Acura TL Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
I could agree with your thinking - if the performance difference was larger. But look at the facts. The TL's - 258 HP VS the Accord's 244. They are basically the same engine - the TL has slightly larger diameter pistons (larger displacement) - thats why it is a 3.2L VS the Accord's 3.0L. If you think the TL's engine has some level of advanced design PLEASE EXPLAIN what the difference is I would like to know. I think your advanced engineering theory is just plain wrong. What level of power would Honda get if the took the 3.2L engine and tuned it for regular gas? No way to know for sure. It would be above the Accord's 244 - below the TL's 258. 250 HP would be a good guess. Do you agree with this estimate? So my point is - is it worth the extra 8 HP to require premium? Obviously if you gained 25 or 30 HP by using premium it would be well worth it - but that is just not the case. I used Acura VS Honda as my example because it is so easy to compare. I don't know if MB or BMW (whoever) have this clean of an example - same engine - same technology - one using regular one premium. If they do I would think the power difference would be about the same as the 3.0L VS 3.2L example. But wait Wouldn't true PREMIUM engineering be getting more power out of an engine while using regular gas? Wouldn't the easy -cheap - low tech way to gain a few extra HP out of an engine be to just tune it to use premium gas? BTW - I owned a 69 Chevelle SS 396 that required premium gas. Fun car - wish I still had it. So do you think GM was using advanced engineering back in the 60's when they designed cars with bigger displacement plus required premium? Not sure why (or how) you come up the "dumb down" comment - or why you want to drag GM into the discussion - But it seems like Acura did the same exact thing - increase the displacement (3.0 to 3.2) - and also required premium gas - just to get a small increase in power. So when GM increases displacement and requires premium gas in the 60's you think that is dumbing down - but when Acura increases displacement and requires premium gas in 2006 that is PREMIUM engineering. I stick by my opinion - main reason MB, BMW, Acura require premium is mainly due to marketing concerns - because the performance difference does not explain it. In a strange way - the extra $ for premium gas is not as significant as it was a few years ago. When regular gas was $1.00 a gallon - premium was $1.20 - Yesterday I paid $3.019 per gallon for premium - regular unleaded was $2.819 - same $.20 but far smaller %.
|
|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Aug 14, 2006 7:26 am) Say what? The TL 6-speed that I own has been tested at 0-60 in anywhere from 5.9 to 6.4 seconds by the major car magazines. I don't have those figures for the Accord V6 6-speed, but Edmunds here rates it at 7.48 seconds. That difference is ENORMOUS, in relative terms. About a year ago I drove the Accord 6-speed and TL 6-speed back to back with a friend and, IMO, there isn't much of a comparison. Granted, the Accord's softer suspension and weak brakes didn't help my negative feeling, but I still noticed a big difference in the engine performance. The TL revved to redline more smoothly. The torque band seemed noticably broader. I'm no mechanical engineer, but I believe part of that difference has to be attributed to the 11.0:1 compression ratio of the TL vs. 10.0:1 of the Accord. Achieving higher compression ratios in the Accord without knocking/premature ignition would require higher octane gas. I have no issue with someone who might judge for themselves that performance is not a priority and happily drive off in an Accord instead of a TL. But to suggest there isn't a difference leads me to conclude that your butt-meter is broken. Or worse, not being used. Forget what the published ratings are. Use your own test drives to make your own call. P.S. We could open up an entire Pandora's box of unrelated issues regarding performance vs. marketing. Like why, with a soft suspension, does the Accord Sedan V6 have 17" wheels and tires. My 12 year old 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed sits on 15" wheels and is both a quicker AND better handling car than the Accord V6. And, at 155k miles, is still only on its third set of tires, at under $500 a set. So, in principle, I don't disagree with you that some so-called performance enhancements are really marketing gimmicks. But I don't think you can make that claim for premium gas in the majority of the better performance engines by the Japanese and Germans. |
|
| I tried both gas and I noticed I get better milage with premimum gas. | |
|
Before buying the TL drove the Accord V6 coupe and sedan -(all automatics - wife's car). We both liked the TL better -(looks, handling, and power) thats why we bought it - If it requires premium gas - thats what we will feed it. I am not trying to say that the 3.0L Accord has as much power as the 3.2L TL - it does not - thats just a fact. What I am pointing out is part of the reason for the power increase is the larger displacement - and part is the higher compression ratio (which is why premium is required). If Acura just bumped the displacement up and kept regular fuel the power difference would not even be noticed by most.
|
|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Aug 14, 2006 7:17 pm) On that point, I would agree with you. I'm not sure even I would notice on an automatic, since, unless you are really pushing it, it tends to shift into higher gears at pretty low rpms. What I tend to notice in the "premium" cars I considerer was that the engine was smooth through the entire rev band, which is much more evident when yu are driving a manual transmission. Going bigger on displacement and lower on compression and engine refinement is a distinctly American tradition. Getting the most bang per liter of displacement is what the Japanese, Germans and Italians do best. And, for awhile, the Honda S2000 was the best of the best in that department (2.0 liters, 240hp). I don't see Acura bucking that trend by simply offering bigger engines, without also tweaking out the incremental horsepower with higher compression, revised exhaust systems (MDX vs. Pilot), etc. |
|
|
You can feel the difference in how smooth an engine runs based on its octane requirement? Through the entire rev band - wow! Not sure how to respond to that one - I guess anything is possible - can you also predict earthquakes? Not saying if you take an engine designed to run 91 octane that it will run just as good on 85 octane - think the opposite would be true - but I have driven many many cars that burn regular that were very smooth & powerful. Even though I consider myself to be very sensitive and aware of vehicle performance I would have a hard time feeling a difference in how smooth an engine runs once it gets much over 1,500 RPM - by the time it hits 2,500 RPM even an engine that runs ruff at idle will normally be smooth. What you may be feeling is confirmation of your belief in the marketing hype (translation - its all in your mind). There are many people that will claim - that really believe they can feel the increase in power if they put premium gas in a car that is designed to use regular. Years of advertising by the oil companies that premium gas was "better" for your car still impact opinion. This is true even though the government stopped these ads years ago and even though tests show using a higher octane fuel does nothing to improve performance in an engine that is not designed for higher octane. But thats a different topic.
|
|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Aug 15, 2006 6:51 am) Manufacturers like BMW, Porsche, Acura, etc. have put considerable engineering effort in getting the most power and efficiency out of their engines. I have a 3.8 liter 911S that can match an 8.0 liter Viper in 0-60 (4.0 seconds) and still got 27.8 mpg on a 360 mile highway trip at 75 mph. Both happen to use premium gas, but it appears that Porsche is much better at using higher compression and more precise ignition timing to achieve extraordinary performance with limited displacement. Last fall we drove straight from Pittsburgh to Annapolis with friends (about 300 miles). We were in our 2005 Acura MDX with our two kids. The other couple was in a 2005 Honda Pilot, with no kids. Our MDX was carrying at least 100 lbs more in people and luggage. We got 24.0 mpg, they got 22.5 mpg (the EPA highway rating is 23 and 22 respectively). As I understand it, these are virtually identical 3.5 liter V6 engines / 5-speed transmissions, with the MDX having a different exhaust system. The MDX uses premium and the Pilot uses regular gas. When I originally test drove both vehicles back to back, I noticed a smoother feel to the MDX, especially under hard acceleration. Not a dramatic difference, but a noticable one. Again, we bought the MDX over the Pilot for a combination of factors, but extra do-dads would not have carried the day if I hadn't also felt the MDX was a somewhat better performing vehicle. And yet I fully respect Pilot buyers who keep that extra $7,000+ in their pocket.
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Aug 15, 2006 8:53 am) I now drive an 06 TL but have yet to try out regular gas. My point here is that it is certainly possible that the recommended premium gas in the TL is more a marketing scheme to further separate Honda and Acura. From the Acura standpoint, you lose power with regular gas. From the Honda standpoint, you gain power with premium gas. Either way, i do feel the TL has more power regardless of premium or regular gas. I do remember my 04 accord having a noticeable lag in acceleration with the A/C at full blast. In the TL, I have yet to feel said difference in power with or without the A/C on. |
|
|
Replying to: xafwodahs (Jun 20, 2006 7:31 pm) I started my quest for a used car thinking Solara or Accord Coupe, lightly used. I test drove those as well as new '06 models. Then, on a whim, I test drove an ES 330. I almost bought an '05 ES, but read about tranny problems so I kept looking at similar cars and found that I liked the TL a lot. I test drove an '03 Accord Coupe and an '03 TL back-to-back and to me, the difference was huge. The toys like heated rear view mirror and memory adjustments were just an added bonus. I bought a TL because the acceleration was stronger and smoother, the ride smoother and quieter. It feels more luxurious and more sporty at the same time. For me, there is no comparison. I am happy to pay the price for premium gas. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Aug 14, 2006 7:26 am) It is true that this is not much of a difference in power, but you have to consider that these are the new SAE power ratings. The 2004 Honda Accord V6 was rated at 240hp and the 2004 Acura TL was rated at 270hp. Now from what I understand, the engines have not been changed since the cars were redesigned, so there is a much bigger difference in power, but the new ratings system seem to narrow the gap. I think that a 30hp difference justifies premium gas. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Acura TL Acura TL and Premium vs Regular Gas
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Acura TL
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
