Somewhat yes but still a 20-grade. The only real way to counter fuel dilution is with viscosity. Fiddling around within the same grade is only of minor help.You could use DexosD M1 0w-20 ESP. Much more robust than regular 0w-20.
Somewhat yes but still a 20-grade. The only real way to counter fuel dilution is with viscosity. Fiddling around within the same grade is only of minor help.You could use DexosD M1 0w-20 ESP. Much more robust than regular 0w-20.
What compression ratio is considered to be high?The mechanism is that due to high compression ratios used on GDI and TGDI mills .....
What compression ratio is considered to be high?
My GDI/Turbo Golf in sig. has 9.6:1 ratio.
Quite the higher than mine. Wonder if there are any advantages to it but also some negatives.My Mazda SkyActiv 2.5 is 13:1. The newer Toyota engines with similar technology are up there as well.
Yes, that's traditionally been the case. For example, my 6.4L is 10.9:1, and calls for a minimum of 91. It pings BADLY on regular (I got a tank at a station that was supposed to be 91 and had to dilute it with 94 to get the pinging to stop). It is of course port-injected.So I did some reading just now in a couple places on the net and it said that engines with higher compression ratio require gasoline with higher octane. But it didn't say at what ratio.
9.6:1 for a port injected engine with forced induction would be considered high. The 6.2L HEMI has 9.5:1 and that's "high", requiring 91 at minimum.What compression ratio is considered to be high?
My GDI/Turbo Golf in sig. has 9.6:1 ratio.
My OM says it's ok to use 87 but for higher performance use 91. Also I live in 4,700 feet elevation and frequently drive up to 8,000 and I read one time that is better to use gas with lower octane at such elevation.Yes, that's traditionally been the case. For example, my 6.4L is 10.9:1, and calls for a minimum of 91. It pings BADLY on regular (I got a tank at a station that was supposed to be 91 and had to dilute it with 94 to get the pinging to stop). It is of course port-injected.
DI engines, because they can control when and how much fuel they deliver directly into the cylinder, can tolerate much higher compression ratios for the same octane, but the side effect of that is fuel dilution, using more enrichment to control knock.
Yeah, but you have DI, which is why they can get away with allowing 87.My OM says it's ok to use 87 but for higher performance use 91. Also I live in 4,700 feet elevation and frequently drive up to 8,000 and I read one time that is better to use gas with lower octane at such elevation.
The low tension piston rings are partly due to that too.It's caused from them being direct injection and turbocharged coupled with not-great programming. It's an enrichment problem.
So you're saying Honda uses different engines in other markets? The 1.5 DI Turbo in Europe has looser tolerances than the one in the US?Anyone can tell you to run a 30 weight oil, but they aren't going to pay your repair bills when Honda denies your warranty claim.
That's been beat to death and I've posted the owner's manuals several times. There is no SAE 30 recommended nor authorized by Honda in the USA for these vehicles.
OH, and "chances are nothing will happen" can be countered with a "what if it does and you blew your warranty?"
Maybe I missed it, but is there a specific statement that says the warranty will be void if a viscosity beside the "recommended" (not "required" or "demanded") is used? If so, got a snip-it of that OM statement?Anyone can tell you to run a 30 weight oil, but they aren't going to pay your repair bills when Honda denies your warranty claim.
That's been beat to death and I've posted the owner's manuals several times. There is no SAE 30 recommended nor authorized by Honda in the USA for these vehicles.
OH, and "chances are nothing will happen" can be countered with a "what if it does and you blew your warranty?"