Running high test in a car that doesn't need it hurts nothing other than your wallet. I have no issue running high test in a car that needs it. Funny thing is many folks buy a car that needs high test & insist running regular in it??? That I really don't understand.

OK back on topic. My son's Fit has been great. ;-p

 

Our '15 LX 6 spd MT has been fine for us ….I did have the cold start grind a handful of times, none in well over a year. In all fairness, we did buy it CPO, either I got lucky with a "good build," or the previous owner had all the nagging problems fixed and decided to unload it. Since I had been driving a '03 Focus that dropped a valve seat and destroyed the engine, our FIT is a dream You want to see a prime example of a car manufacturer not caring, Google Focus/Escorts dropping valve seats in their SOHC engines. Was a known problem for many years, Ford just denied it and stuck their head in the sand

 

The computer will compensate for the lower octane. I bought a 2004 SRT-4 new. Required 93 octane. Ran 87 octane for most of the cars 215K miles over 11 or 12 years I owned it. I only ran 93 if I was going to race it. Only downside of the 87 was lower boost/power under hard acceleration. Approximately 6 months ago the car had 240K miles at title transfer according to Carfax.

 

What you are saying is true, but I don't get it. Why bother buying a performance car and then living with less power?

Personally, I like my vehicles performing their best at all times. The '15+ Fit has 11.5:1 compression. That is, without question, into premium fuel territory unless you are fine with it retarding timing. If you don't care about performance or your wife/significant other is driving the vehicle, than it makes total sense to fill it with 87.

That being said, if it's your car and you care about how it performs daily, give it good fuel.

 

Not to mention that, with modern ECU's, Long Term Fuel Trim and Short Term Fuel Trim, start to play important rolls.

In very basic language, the LTFT is set by the average fuel used and STFT will advance or retard timing on the fly. If your LTFT is set to a lower number, the timing will have a low base. The ecu with use the STFT to advance the timing, but you'll never have as much timing as a vehicle that has established a higher LTFT.

Here's an idea of what I'm saying...

Joe, I don't care about performance and buy 87 fuel because it's cheaper, Schmo has a LTFT of 15 degrees base timing. Joe IDCAPAB87FBIC Schmo puts 93 in to run at the track. The ecu senses it and adds 2 degrees of base timing which gives him 17 degrees.

Joe, I care about my car and how it performs and buy 93 because I can, Schmo has a LTFT of 18 degrees of base timing. Joe ICAMCAHIPAB93BIC Schmo puts 93 in to run at the track. The ecu senses it's getting what it wants and adds 1 degree of base timing which gives him 19 degrees.

If you question what I'm saying, go find a reputable tuner to explain it in detail.

PS. None of this matters one bit if you don't care how much power and subsequent fuel economy your car delivers.

 

Excellent example. Another example : why my 15lx 6mt on 91 is scooting off a 14.9 standing quarter mile, and joe schmoes on 87 is doing 16.9s while coking up its intake valves with heavily retarded timing and no detergent.

 

I wasn't hurting for money, but at that time of my life I didn't have the disposable income for both a daily driver and track/autocross car like I do now. I out grew racing on the street or driving like an idiot a long time ago. Other than my usual 5mph over the speed limit, I drive within the rules of the road when commuting. So why put 93 Octane in every fill up when one day a month the car would go to the track? My SRT-4 put out, 235 HP on the chassis dyno on 93 octane. For sake of discussion, it only put out 200HP on 87 octane? I would speculate it's was actually less of a drop? How was I or anyone else going to notice that 30 HP when driving the car normal? In the SRT's early life I drove it 30K miles a year. That's allot of 93 octane to burn up on a car that would get high 20's for gas millage that only went to the track 8 times a year. Now in regard to my WRX, I run 93 octane all the time. Not because I have more disposable income, but because the car only sees 3K miles a year at most. It's too hard to drain the tank before an autocross event. Basically I put enough gas for the commute to the event and a gallon or two to burn up auto crossing. it. As it is the WRX only sees WOT while auto crossing. Otherwise it isn't driven any different the what a normal person drives their passenger car.

 

Rob, the important thing is you were choosing 87 with the knowledge of what that means.

In respect to these modern DI motors, it's also worth bringing up what Cichlid is saying. The lower timing as a result of the lower octane fuel can also result in more carbon deposits. Lower timing equal lower combustion temperatures which can result in carbon deposits.

To what degree, I don't know. However, I think that people should have knowledge of what their fuel selection may or may not mean.

87 octane will work fine, but will result in lower hp, lower fuel economy, and potentially more carbon deposits.
93 octane will work fine, but will result in a lower bank account with each fill up.

That being said, the sea of 87 octane using people is a good reason I try not to buy used cars.

Blindly saying one is better than the other is...blind.

Which is better long term is up to each person to decide.

 

Yes the knock sensor will tell the ECU to cut timing to save the engine death due to detonation. That's great that you got a Neon to 240K, I applaud you. For me I want all the performance the car can give me. Different strokes as they say.

 

my last car was an '02 si , had a K&N short ram and a Neuspeed cat-back on it , did alot of reseach on it at the time and remember reading a recommendation to
stick with high test with any mods to the motor , the reason being the ECU , was very sensitive to any hint of knocking . they found this out on the dyno . they
said it was a honda thing .

 

All true and that motor was only 9.8:1 compression ratio vs 10.4:1 for a GD or GE and 11.5:1 for a GK.

Once you move into the Acura line, Honda doesn't mind telling those owners that premium fuel is recommended.

One difference is that the speed at which the ECU's can respond has improved since 2002. They are now able to retard timing much quicker and avoid any hint of detonation. The result is that a modern GK Fit will run just fine with 87 octane and not have detonation. It will just have less power. Not sure how it will effect carbon deposits long term though.

 

This is from an Australian source, and the details may not align with the US version and release date.

https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-new...-sensing-73504

 

Autowise 2/28/19 article on 4th Gen Fit:

"2020 Fit
The 5-door subcompact hatchback is in for a major overhaul during MY 2020. This petite, affordable car nourishes the essence of early Honda years by providing simple yet effective means of city transportation. With around 50,000 units sold per year in the U.S., the Fit doesn’t count among the most popular Honda vehicles here, but that was never its intention anyway. The smart city car offers plenty of cargo space for its class, an abundance of tech gear, and excellent fuel economy. The 2020 Honda Fit will be an all-new fourth-generation model set to adopt a slightly different strategy than the outgoing units. At least from a design standpoint. The forthcoming Fit, whose early mules have already been caught testing, will apparently sport a more horizontally-oriented design which should give it a sportier look. Expect the prices to see a slight bump after the proposed generation shift, as base models will likely be available from around $17,000.

The current Honda Fit is anything but a fast car, and the next-gen models won’t try and change that. A 130-horsepower 1.5L inline-four served as the third generation’s sole powertrain offering in the U.S., but that might soon get changed. The next-gen models might incorporate a 1.0L turbocharged 3-cylinder engine the Japanese are using overseas instead. This would further improve already good fuel economy figures without sacrificing any power. In fact, it’s making 129 ponies at the moment which splits the difference of the outgoing engine’s 128 hp with a CVT and 130 hp with a manual straight down the middle. As far as transmission choices go, it’s still too early to tell whether the next-gen Fit will retain a stick. A CVT gearbox, on the other hand, is almost certain to carry over."

Spy pics available online: https://www.autoblog.com/2018/09/26/...#slide-7432152

Disappointing if manual tranny will not be made available.

 

Maybe Honda will pursue the path of the Civic - make it mainstream enough for Joe Public, but slip in a Type S or Si version with a 6MT and LSD as an "enthusiast's" model.

 

I might be in the minority, but I never wanted or needed Honda Sensing although the reverse camera grew on me.

 

The Honda sensing is very nice for highway use. Even though you may not think you need it, that one time you do, the auto braking will be very nice.

 

A turbo engine would be nice for possible tuning. No manual option would be disappointing and a deal breaker though.

 

I found the original thread, but it had gone off the rails.

https://www.motor1.com/news/315658/honda-fit-jazz-spy-photos/

Doesn't look revolutionary to me...they need to drop that 'r'.

 

So the next gen spy shots are making there way around my news feed again. Thoughts? Honestly i don't know what to think of it, but for some reason I like my gk more.