Required Fuel Type

[xpeng]

On Honda website, it's saying " Regular Unleaded (Premium Recommended) ". https://automobiles.honda.com/civic-type-r#
But on the manual, it's saying "Premium 91 or higher". I assume FL5 is w/o auto idle stop.

I will follow the manual. But should Honda make this kind of low level mistake?

Sponsored

 

[katch922]

It is an odd mistake, premium is the right option. On Honda.ca it actually says premium, just like the manual.

 

[menikmati]

" Use of a lower octane gasoline can cause occasional metallic knocking noise in the engine and will result in decreased engine performance. Use of a gasoline with a pump octane less than 87 can lead to engine damage. "

 

[atucker80]

Mine has 87 minimum printed on the gas cover, but states 91 is recommended. I'd be willing to bet just about anything that dealers are putting in 87 during the PDI.

 

[xpeng]

Mine has 87 minimum printed on the gas cover, but states 91 is recommended. I'd be willing to bet just about anything that dealers are putting in 87 during the PDI.

Just checked my gas cover, showing the same. This makes me even more confused. The only place saying premium required is the manual, Honda website and gas cover both say minimum 87.

 

[Chilly613]

Just checked my gas cover, showing the same. This makes me even more confused. The only place saying premium required is the manual, Honda website and gas cover both say minimum 87.

I feel like you're overthinking it.

Just use premium. Premium is recommended, but if you don't have premium available you can use a lower grade like 87 is what they're probably trying to say.

 

[xpeng]

I feel like you're overthinking it.

Just use premium. Premium is recommended, but if you don't have premium available you can use a lower grade like 87 is what they're probably trying to say.

If you drive 1000 miles per month, the gas price difference can be $500 a year. Overthinking?

 

[Chilly613]

If you drive 1000 miles per month, the gas price difference can be $500 a year. Overthinking?

Its a performance car, if you have to worry about budgeting a year out for gas like that it may not be the car for you.

But good luck to you, hopefully it works out.

 

[rui]

If you drive 1000 miles per month, the gas price difference can be $500 a year. Overthinking?

Be that as it may, you should fill with premium whenever possible. You can use 87 in a pinch, but it'll cause knock. There is a knock sensor, but it is reactive, not proactive. Thus, there will be knock, and continued use may cause engine damage. It's not worth the risk.

 

[menikmati]

If you drive 1000 miles per month, the gas price difference can be $500 a year. Overthinking?

I don’t see the point of that statement, does that situation apply to you? In your other thread you said your other car was driven 800 miles/year.

If given the scenario of paying an extra ~4.2 cents/mile to enjoy the car with minimal knock, I think a lot of us would gladly pay that price.

 

[ABPDE5]

If you drive 1000 miles per month, the gas price difference can be $500 a year. Overthinking?

I'm not trying to be rude, but realistically:
1. Risking damage to a $50k investment due to consistently repeated knock events over an extra $500 / year doesn't seem to make sense.
2. If an extra $500 in fuel / year is that much of a deterrent, how does one rationalize spending $50k on a car with mediocre efficiency?

The logic here doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: I want to be clear -- in a vacuum, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being hesitant to spend an extra $500 on fuel / year. That said, if you have those anxieties, wouldn't a less expensive and more efficient vehicle would be better for your use case? There are plenty of cars with better fuel economy and a lower sticker price that are still very fun to drive.

 

[xpeng]

I'm not trying to be rude, but realistically:
1. Risking damage to a $50k investment due to consistently repeated knock events over an extra $500 / year doesn't seem to make sense.
2. If an extra $500 in fuel / year is that much of a deterrent, how does one rationalize spending $50k on a car with mediocre efficiency?

The logic here doesn't make sense to me.

The instructions are conflicting, only the manual says premium, both Honda website and gas cover say regular. If the engine doesn’t require premium, why throw the money into water. Premium will not give you more power or anything.

 

[ABPDE5]

The instructions are conflicting, only the manual says premium, both Honda website and gas cover say regular. If the engine doesn’t require premium, why throw the money into water. Premium will not give you more power or anything.

They make it clear that premium is recommended. 87 is listed as a minimum. As others have pointed out, this indicates that you can get away with 87 if you have to, but you should use 91 given the option. Honda would not recommend premium if 87 was equally serviceable.
Looking at tuning threads, it's clear these ECUs are very aggressive. They do not learn over time; they react and reset (I believe every time you press the pedal).

87 comes with risk, and again, given the $500 / year potential delta you provided compared to the cost of the car... it doesn't seem to be a risk worth taking.

We just had a similar thread on the DE5 forums -- keep in mind the DE5 tune is even more aggressive and 93 is recommended -- and I cannot understand spending $50k+ on a car if an extra $500 / year in fuel savings is worth risking the condition of that vehicle to you...

 

[Noize]

A lot of people in this thread making a fuss over very little.

The ECU has the authority range to correct for 87 octane. Yes, it’s reactive by design. But the amount of knock won’t be audible and it will easily correct before damaging levels.

Should you try to run 91-93 and will it make the most power on premium? Definitely.

Do a lot of these cars get run on 87 by non-enthusiasts with zero longterm damage? Definitely, with a loss of performance.

 

[Chilly613]

This is the last I'll say anything about this, but this is from the manual.

Sponsored