The Truth: 93 Octane v. 87 Octane (Dyno Proven) - Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums
Ribbon Banner

Go Back   Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums > CAR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION > 7TH GENERATION HONDA ACCORD (2003-2007) > 7G HONDA ACCORD PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Insurance
V6Performance.net is the premier Honda Accord Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Like Tree1Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:17 PM   #1
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
The Truth: 93 Octane v. 87 Octane (Dyno Proven)

Took my Accord on the same exact dyno with the same exact dynapack setting and nearly the exact same ambient conditions (see numbers on right side.)

The run today was done with the following differences: Seafoam, TB cleaned, new spark plugs (OEM NGK) and 8 months of using BP 93 octane.

The light line is the 87 octane run in 2007...the bold line is the 93 octane run in 2008.



Extremely disappointing. I guess I won't be buying 93 octane anymore.

Last edited by 99VTECCoupe; October 18th, 2008 at 12:43 PM..
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:22 PM   #2
J33 w/TL LSD 6 Speed
 
05AV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,586
Send a message via AIM to 05AV6
I have seen differences of as much as 10 WHP from one dyno run to the next, and there are several other factors that can contribute to lower numbers especially over 8 monthes..
05AV6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:30 PM   #3
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05AV6 View Post
I have seen differences of as much as 10 WHP from one dyno run to the next, and there are several other factors that can contribute to lower numbers especially over 8 monthes..
Great. I have 4 dyno runs from today and 4 from last year, all were within 1 peak WHP.

edit: I knew you sounded familiar: http://www.v6performance.net/forums/...d.php?t=148839

This is a serious thread, no talking out of the ass please. We've all been under the impression that using higher octane fuel advanced the ignition timing and led to a peak increase of about 10HP , but I seriously doubt that's true now.

Last edited by 99VTECCoupe; October 18th, 2008 at 12:42 PM..
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:54 PM   #4
LaLaLaLa
 
stupidaznmunkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange County
Posts: 4,852
Send a message via AIM to stupidaznmunkey
for the 6th gen accord, there were obvious reasons why 93 would make no difference against 87 such as lack of a knock sensor, extremely conservative timing etc

but i dont know what about the 7th gen - i guess its the same?
stupidaznmunkey is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:55 PM   #5
cunning linguist
 
MorePower4me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: AZ --> IL
Posts: 984
Hmm. I have always been using 87 but I guess I was hoping that there would be at least some difference!

Did you check the normal dyno things - similar air pressure in the front tires (that really does make a difference) - car completely cooled before the dyno?

Either way there could be a thousand things that changed that you would have no idea of including recent ECU Fuel mapping. I guess the real thing is whether you feel a difference when using 93?

No one races dyno's, so if you car only dyno'd 190whp but your the quickest guy in town... who cares!
__________________

-Brian-
04 6spd Coupe-> 10 4cyl Coupe-> 11 V6 Coupe
07 V6 Auto Sedan-> 10 CR-V
Mod'd Z06 - Sold for move
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MorePower4me is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:57 PM   #6
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Apparently. The theory was that because the J30A4 has the knock sensor, it can advance timing with higher octane fuel. I have a scangauge and the timing is actually more advanced vs. 87...on full throttle the timing ATDC was 10-12 and on 93 its 4-8.

On the J30A1 it's been proven that using 93 decreases power, but when the '03 Accord first came out a Honda engineer was quoted in a magazine (car and driver?) that using 93 in the car advanced timing and added 10 horsepower. I guess he was talking out of his ass...
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 12:57 PM   #7
Registered User
 
CRV_33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to CRV_33
i dont see why this come to a suprise, honestly this has been covered in the past on this forum.

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to posting your results! I can't really think of any other forum where members contribute their findings
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CRV_33 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 01:01 PM   #8
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorePower4me View Post
Hmm. I have always been using 87 but I guess I was hoping that there would be at least some difference!

Did you check the normal dyno things - similar air pressure in the front tires (that really does make a difference) - car completely cooled before the dyno?

Either way there could be a thousand things that changed that you would have no idea of including recent ECU Fuel mapping. I guess the real thing is whether you feel a difference when using 93?

No one races dyno's, so if you car only dyno'd 190whp but your the quickest guy in town... who cares!
It's a dynapack so the wheels are unbolted and the dyno is bolted straight onto the hubs. Like I said I've been using 93 for well over 10,000 miles and did my most recent tune up stuff 3,000 or so miles ago. I'm more than happy with 220hp at the wheels, the run today was just to see what the 93 octane did. The only difference I've noticed on 93 is slightly better gas mileage around town and no combustion knocking below 1500RPM in high gears.
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 02:17 PM   #9
J33 w/TL LSD 6 Speed
 
05AV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,586
Send a message via AIM to 05AV6
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99VTECCoupe View Post
Great. I have 4 dyno runs from today and 4 from last year, all were within 1 peak WHP.

edit: I knew you sounded familiar: http://www.v6performance.net/forums/...d.php?t=148839

This is a serious thread, no talking out of the ass please. We've all been under the impression that using higher octane fuel advanced the ignition timing and led to a peak increase of about 10HP , but I seriously doubt that's true now.
I was talking from my experience as well, not out of my ass, all I said is that there were a number of reasons why it could have changed...thanks for the personal attack though
05AV6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 02:44 PM   #10
Bobby Lane Racing
 
nighthawk04v6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,679
temperature, humidity, engine temp, maintenance, wear and tear on the engine all play a role. =| also calibration of the dyno. Dynapacks require alot of maintenance and calibration.
nighthawk04v6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 05:33 PM   #11
293 of 540
 
Synthetic599's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 772
Send a message via AIM to Synthetic599 Send a message via Yahoo to Synthetic599
I can't seem to find another dyno comparing the two octanes then again I can't find my wallet even if its in my back pocket. Was there any other dyno comparison that proved otherwise?
Synthetic599 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 05:54 PM   #12
C.R.E.A.M.
 
1iLlaV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Home of the Alamo
Posts: 1,567
Send a message via AIM to 1iLlaV6
ok.....so are there really any REAL benefits for using 93?if not im gonna friggin start using 87 no doubt!
1iLlaV6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 06:56 PM   #13
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05AV6 View Post
I was talking from my experience as well, not out of my ass, all I said is that there were a number of reasons why it could have changed...thanks for the personal attack though
No personal attack intended, but in July you were convinced that you gained 25hp between dyno runs and wouldn't listen to anybody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighthawk04v6 View Post
temperature, humidity, engine temp, maintenance, wear and tear on the engine all play a role. =| also calibration of the dyno. Dynapacks require alot of maintenance and calibration.
As I said, temp, humity, engine temp and calibration were the exact same (incredibly, the temp was 6 degrees lower and the rel hum was likw .5% lower...taking into account the SAE CF, there should be no difference). They had saved my cal file from the previous year. Granted my engine had an extra 20k miles or so, but I did seafoam/plugs/cleaned my intake filter a month ago. Also dida compression test, perfect score all around. The first dyno was with about 90k miles, this one is around 110k. The two possible explanations for the nearly identical power curves are:

1) 93 octane has no effect
2) My engine lost exactly the amount of power that 93 octane had increased it by across the entire curve.

What's more reasonable? 4 dyno runs were within 1 peak WHP of 4 dyno runs taken a year ago...I put 93 octane in my car for 8 months because I believed/hoped that it increased power (and theoretically it should), but I can't possibly believe it right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic599 View Post
I can't seem to find another dyno comparing the two octanes then again I can't find my wallet even if its in my back pocket. Was there any other dyno comparison that proved otherwise?
Negative, just that statement from the Honda engineer. In order to really prove the effects, the dynos would have to be taken thousands of vehicle miles apart to ensure that the ECU had fully adjusted to the changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1iLlaV6 View Post
ok.....so are there really any REAL benefits for using 93?if not im gonna friggin start using 87 no doubt!
Better driveability at low RPM/high throttle (no pinging) when it's hot and humid out. I'll be using 87 this winter but might go back to 93 in the summer.
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 18th, 2008, 07:07 PM   #14
J33 w/TL LSD 6 Speed
 
05AV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,586
Send a message via AIM to 05AV6
Actually i had my Dyno redone, they didn't hookup the wideband sensor correctly on my first runs. after Tuning with the Apexi AFC Neo I netted a peak of 219 whp, which is where i thought my car should have been...sorry for any misunderstanding
05AV6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 01:26 AM   #15
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05AV6 View Post
Actually i had my Dyno redone, they didn't hookup the wideband sensor correctly on my first runs. after Tuning with the Apexi AFC Neo I netted a peak of 219 whp, which is where i thought my car should have been...sorry for any misunderstanding
Glad to hear you got it straightened out. Remember that most shops are all too happy to take your money as long as you seem happy.
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 08:53 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 56
Found the USA Today article where the engineer says 10hp gain. It is in the third paragraph of the Powertrain section, also is repeated in the side bar that compares our sweet ass car to that POS Camry.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...1-accord_x.htm
Skeezer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 07:18 PM   #17
Boomdiada
 
Swift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern WI
Posts: 52
Send a message via AIM to Swift
what spark plugs did you use?
Did you gap them properly?
Did you change type of oil you are using?
change out fuel filter?

things change, some things just never do. Such as ignorance, and ignorance is bliss.
__________________
92' acura legend 5sd coupe Type-S*High compression 3.5 spec-R motor, custom pullies, custom intake, custom exhaust, custom chip, short shifter, injen intake, spec2 clutch, EBC redstuffs, etc etc
94' auto coupe for build up
Swift is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 07:23 PM   #18
Registered User
 
AccordWhite00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Broward
Posts: 632
My service guy told me if I ran 93 octane my car will just retard the timing or something, so running 87 and 93 will give you the same effect.


I was told high a compression motor needs higher octane to burn efficiently; the higher the octane the higher the combustion rate.
And low compression motors can use any 87 or 93, but will not have any gain or lose.

I dunno, but I know 93 burns longer then 87 octane.
AccordWhite00 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 08:11 PM   #19
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccordWhite00 View Post
My service guy told me if I ran 93 octane my car will just retard the timing or something, so running 87 and 93 will give you the same effect.


I was told high a compression motor needs higher octane to burn efficiently; the higher the octane the higher the combustion rate.
And low compression motors can use any 87 or 93, but will not have any gain or lose.

I dunno, but I know 93 burns longer then 87 octane.
High compression motors need high octane to avoid pre-detonation. Octane is a measure of the resistance of the fuel to compression detonation...basically they have more long carbon chain molecules that are tougher to break apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post
what spark plugs did you use?
Did you gap them properly?
Did you change type of oil you are using?
change out fuel filter?

things change, some things just never do. Such as ignorance, and ignorance is bliss.
OEM NGK Iridium.
You're not supposed to re-gap iridiums (iridium is a very brittle metal, if the gap is out of spec they tell you to send them back. obviously I checked the gap with my gage.)
I've been using Mobil 1 5W-20 since I bought the car. Either way it wouldn't make any noticeable difference...there are several SAE papers that go into the subject, it's really splitting hairs unless you're going from 10W-60 to 0W-20 in an engine with tiny tolerances.
AV6's have permanent fuel filters.
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 09:49 PM   #20
Pilot & Accord
 
TonyWare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa Canada
Posts: 867
I think I read here in this forum a while back that a Honda engineer did point out that higher octane will give +10hp. So, whoever wrote that obviously made it up because the dyno results are for everyone here to see.

Usually compression 11.0:1 means premium gas. I think that all the J engines in all v6 Acuras are 11.0:1. What is really interesting is that the Lexus GS430 has a compression ratio of 10.5:1 and still requires premium gasoline while the 09 Accord has the same ratio and they recommend regular gas. Go figure.
TonyWare is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 09:59 PM   #21
C.R.E.A.M.
 
1iLlaV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Home of the Alamo
Posts: 1,567
Send a message via AIM to 1iLlaV6
so ive been using 93 for awhile.last night i filled up on 87,and imo 93 feels better.a slight decrease....also,this might all be in my head lol.
back to 93 for me.
1iLlaV6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 10:14 PM   #22
girl powah!!
 
03aV6cpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,757
Send a message via AIM to 03aV6cpe
renzo has never had a sip of anything less than premium 93. even when gas prices go up he still sips the good stuff, and i wouldn't have it any other way.....it's just personal preference..
__________________
Joyce
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Official Slammed Club Member (Stage 3)
Featured Ride Of The Month (June-July 2010)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
03aV6cpe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 19th, 2008, 11:56 PM   #23
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
I don't think these results compared nearly a full year apart prove or disprove anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighthawk04v6
temperature, humidity, engine temp, maintenance, wear and tear on the engine all play a role. =| also calibration of the dyno. Dynapacks require alot of maintenance and calibration.
Right. That's why you need to make comparisons like this as close together as possible to avoid any subtle changes in your test setup over time skewing results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99VTECCoupe
The first dyno was with about 90k miles, this one is around 110k. The two possible explanations for the nearly identical power curves are:

1) 93 octane has no effect
2) My engine lost exactly the amount of power that 93 octane had increased it by across the entire curve.
3) Your baseline was done on 90k mile worn plugs vs fresh ones this time. Is that really fair?

4) The above mentioned questions about comparing results a full year apart.

We still know the timing is more advanced on higher octanes, which is a huge hint. That's more telling than dyno results. The car is also quicker at the track on higher octane, proven by several years ago. And I really don't think a Honda engineer speaking on the record in a major newspaper is going to be "talking out his ass". It's also said right on hondanews.com in the fine print for other similar J engines that they would make some extra power/torque with higher octane and that it was recommended for towing, but that the engine was rated on regular fuel. I don't think one dyno comparison with questionable methodology disproves all of this.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 07:12 AM   #24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 36
Hear is my opioion on this issue. I'm kind of pissed off that you didn't get the numbers that everyone was expecting because what really is one horsepower for 3 bucks more for a tank, its not worth it. On the other hand the knocking sensor at 1500 rpm is nice becasue i like starting first gear about around 1000 rpms and it doesn't sound like someone is hitting my engine with hammer really fast. The question i had also was that if 93 does advance your timing will 89 do the same? And i'm willing to take this issue one step further and try to find out if this Myth is bust or if it true about hp just one more time. I'm looking for someone with a stock 03 v6 6spd with navigation and willing to a dyno back to back with me one using 93 and the other uses 87 so we can put this to rest.
Blazing Tires is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 07:47 AM   #25
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Read my post above. Too many people always instantly believe WHATEVER they see on the Internet without nearly enough skepticism. Different cars will give different results and would be yet more flawed methodology. Go dyno your car on 87 octane and empty the tank. Fill up with 91/93 and put at least one full tank and 300 miles through it and then go dyno again preferably in similar conditions with the same SAE correction factor say no more than a week apart. That's about as good as you're going to get.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 07:58 AM   #26
Registered User
 
99VTECCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 1,781
Send a message via AIM to 99VTECCoupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
I don't think these results compared nearly a full year apart prove or disprove anything.

Right. That's why you need to make comparisons like this as close together as possible to avoid any subtle changes in your test setup over time skewing results.

3) Your baseline was done on 90k mile worn plugs vs fresh ones this time. Is that really fair?

4) The above mentioned questions about comparing results a full year apart.

We still know the timing is more advanced on higher octanes, which is a huge hint. That's more telling than dyno results. The car is also quicker at the track on higher octane, proven by several years ago. And I really don't think a Honda engineer speaking on the record in a major newspaper is going to be "talking out his ass". It's also said right on hondanews.com in the fine print for other similar J engines that they would make some extra power/torque with higher octane and that it was recommended for towing, but that the engine was rated on regular fuel. I don't think one dyno comparison with questionable methodology disproves all of this.
So you'd prefer to do the comparison within a week? I guess that's a better way to do it, if you plan on constantly switching back and forth between 87 and 93. The problem with back to back dynos is that you're not giving the PCM time to adjust its long term calibration. When I first started using 93 I did definitely notice a slight power increase. As I said, theoretically, the PCM should advance timing. We all know this. If you read my posts, I also said that according to my scangauge the timing is more advanced using 93...and it's also been more advanced since I changed the spark plugs. I can go into all the calculations and charts that show combustion efficiency vs. timing, but they don't really mean **** when practically there is no net power difference between 93 and 87 after 8 months of using 93.

If the baseline had worn plugs, wouldn't we expect to see a power increase just from the new plugs? Geez, I should have gotten 15HP extra. That's what I was honestly expecting before I did this. I was fully expecting 230-235whp. I was stunned that there was no difference. I'm an automotive engineer and the chief R&D guy at my company, I know how to run tests...everything was controlled aside from the 93 octane. I put in new plugs just to ensure that the 20k or so miles hadn't taken too much of a toll. If anything they should have helped the 93 octane dyno run, right?

As far as "subtle changes in test set up"...they still had my cal file on their computer, everything was the exact same as last year. Only difference was that it was 4degF cooler.

You're honestly calling track times more reliable than dynapack numbers? Come on Steve, I've seen your posts on here, you're a really smart guy. If I have to take a **** I'll probably run a slower 1/4 mile, does that mean that not having to take a **** adds 20HP? What methodology would you have preferred? One where human error is put into the equation? Should I have used a rolling drum dyno and not checked my tire pressure?

I'm not saying this test is perfect by any means, but I also didn't fill up with 93 on Saturday after I did this run. Any of you guys are more than welcome to put your money where your mouth is and run the test, I'm sure you can find a dynapack in your area.

Of course it's possible that I could have gotten a couple batches of improperly blended gas or I lost exactly 10 or however many horsepower through another 20k miles of wear and tear on my car. But that's kind of stretching it, isn't it?

Last edited by 99VTECCoupe; October 20th, 2008 at 08:08 AM..
99VTECCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:03 AM   #27
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
All I'm saying is that your results are completely out of step with a TON of other information. So as a chief R&D guy you should be questioning your own data rather than jumping to conclusions and saying that other R&D guys are full of crap. That's it.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:18 AM   #28
Super Mod
 
aprevo15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,932
where do you guys get 93octane? around here the highest we can get is 91.
aprevo15 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 09:25 AM   #29
Registered User
 
audioman79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: hagerstown,md
Posts: 229
sunoco has it where I live, MD
audioman79 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 20th, 2008, 10:14 AM   #30
Super Mod
 
aprevo15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,932
no sunoco around here.
aprevo15 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Chapter
Choose your AV6 Chapter Location
Ride
What do you drive?
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On