Is the type s able to run on 87?

[Coolyellowcar]

This question has been in my head for a while now. I’ve been putting 93 and the car and only 93, and it isn’t like it is hurting my wallet since it is still an efficient car (29mpg combined for my daily commute), though I would like to know if putting 87 in the car is possible. I’ve heard that ecu’s adapt to what octane is being used after watching a video on the new Elantra n, and it sparked my interest to know if my car did that. I learned that the type r does that so I assumed my type a does the same as they are the same car practically, but when I went to look to see if anyone had acted on my thoughts and put 87 in a type s, I found nothing except people talking about putting 87 in non type s cars. So, would I be safe putting 87 in my type s, and would I actually benefit in fuel economy by putting 87 in my car?

Sponsored

 

[StingertimeNC]

I do think the ecu would adapt, IE pull timing as octane is lower, result is less power. Not sure on long term effects. Fuel economy would not improve, but you might save $2.00 each time you fill the tank up. For $20 a month in savings, I'll stick with 93 so I can have full power. Plus, I think the ECU would need to relearn once you add 93 octane in, which may take a while for it to adjust, unless you just do an ECU reset.

To improve fuel economy, just don't rev the engine up as much, take your time and shift into higher gears to keep the RPM's below 2k. I wouldn't do it as I don't like the sensation of the car lugging, and I don't think it's good for the car.

Obviously you can't really do that on the highway, but our fuel economy is decent on the highway anyway.

 

[creaturemachine]

I think you could get away with 91 on a regular basis but 87 is pushing it. In an emergency sure, but why have this car if you need to drive gingerly because you skimped on gas.

 

[Tw1stedlog1k]

I suspect your fuel economy would get worse with a lower octane fuel. The car would pull timing to the point where it just runs but not as efficiently as it could. I also suspect pops and bangs would also disappear.

 

[Coolyellowcar]

To improve fuel economy, just don't rev the engine up as much, take your time and shift into higher gears to keep the RPM's below 2k. I wouldn't do it as I don't like the sensation of the car lugging, and I don't think it's good for the car.

Obviously you can't really do that on the highway, but our fuel economy is decent on the highway anyway.

This sounds pretty much the same as how I drive the car when I’m using it on my daily commute. I was mainly asking the question to have the knowledge of knowing what putting 87 in my car would do. As I said earlier, it’s not breaking my wallet to put 93 in the car as it is a quite efficient car ($38 for a full tank), it’s more of a “what would happen” question instead of a “why would you” question.

 

[bvanlieu]

You can do it, but I would not do it to save $. If so get rid of the car and buy a car with a more conservative power curve. The el cheapo move is 5 gal of 87, 6+ of 93 to get 90.x blend which I think the car is tuned for pretty much. 5-10hp less you will not feel if it pulls a point or two. I don't want the car to really detune 30+HP myself.

When the ECU does sense detonation, two things will happen. Timing is pulled but also a smidge more fuel can be tossed in to prevent a lean condition as well. modern sensors and ECUs are pretty advanced compared to an old school microphone but still you are relying on it for safety.

Plenty of cars run on 87 today that are tuned for higher due to owner ignorance/rental car bliss. I was in one the other day for 500 miles where I happened to put 93 in it during my trip (a boosted V6 in an Audi) and it perked up a smidge but the car was fine otherwise.

If you do happen to need to put low octane in it, lighter throttle and rev the car slowly (don't dip into 20 PSI boost) and try not to lug the car: low RPM high throttle is a good condition for detonation which the knock sensor should detect, when octane is too low.

 

[optronix]

You could do a lot of things. Doesn't mean you should.

You could also put diesel in it. It won't run, and will be catastrophic for your engine, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it.

Putting 87 octane in when 93 is recommended is a slightly less extreme version of this scenario.

 

[ABPDE5]

I recall reading that while this ECU will pull timing if it senses knock, it will only do so momentarily; it will not "learn" or adapt to a lower octane fuel over extended time, like older Honda ECUs. It prioritizes performance, and it is coded with the expectation that you will attempt to use appropriate octane fuel.

 

[NoelPR]

If you search for "87" in the owners manual this is the only relevant information that shows up.

After reading this you still risk it.
Then all I have to say is "FAFO".

 

[Chilipepper]

Obviously you can't really do that on the highway, but our fuel economy is decent on the highway anyway.

Just went on a 1300+ mile trip for the holiday weekend and was pleasantly surprised at the 30.5 mpg for the total trip. (31.8 mpg highway)

 

[ChromaPop]

This question has been in my head for a while now. I’ve been putting 93 and the car and only 93, and it isn’t like it is hurting my wallet since it is still an efficient car (29mpg combined for my daily commute), though I would like to know if putting 87 in the car is possible. I’ve heard that ecu’s adapt to what octane is being used after watching a video on the new Elantra n, and it sparked my interest to know if my car did that. I learned that the type r does that so I assumed my type a does the same as they are the same car practically, but when I went to look to see if anyone had acted on my thoughts and put 87 in a type s, I found nothing except people talking about putting 87 in non type s cars. So, would I be safe putting 87 in my type s, and would I actually benefit in fuel economy by putting 87 in my car?

You run the risk of engine knock, which can damage your engine over time. I don't quite understand why you would spend over $50,000 on a car then take the risk of destroying or hurting an engine likely worth $10,000 to save a few bucks per month. Check out this video for some of the science:

 

[akoza]

On the fuel door it says 87 minimum, 93 recommended. From all the previous responses here, I agree you should default to using 93. But it probably won't hurt to use 87 if you're ever in a pinch and that's the only grade available.

 

[ABPDE5]

I don't quite understand why you would spend over $50,000 on a car then take the risk of destroying or hurting an engine likely worth $10,000 to save a few bucks per month.

This. (OP did clarify fuel costs are not an issue. Although if fuel costs are a non-issue, why even consider 87? Even in a pinch, I can't inagine not having at least 89/90/91.)

 

[akoza]

If you search for "87" in the owners manual this is the only relevant information that shows up.

After reading this you still risk it.
Then all I have to say is "FAFO".

I had to re-read this because in my head it sounded more ominous than it really is. 87 = fine. 86 or less = bad. Regardless, I'd only use 87 in a pinch, but at least there's some reassurance on the fuel door and owner's manual that it should be fine. And if it isn't, you at least have Acura's own words in writing in multiple places.

 

[NoelPR]

People

I had to re-read this because in my head it sounded more ominous than it really is. 87 = fine. 86 or less = bad. Regardless, I'd only use 87 in a pinch, but at least there's some reassurance on the fuel door and owner's manual that it should be fine. And if it isn't, you at least have Acura's own words in writing in multiple places.

People need to realize one thing.
To retard the ignition for 87oct the engine needs to experience knock.

Are you really putting the engine to that stress unnecessarily?

Sponsored