01-28-2018, 07:19 PM | #15 | |
Drives: 2016 camaro 2.0t gray Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Jacksonville,Fl
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
|
|
01-29-2018, 12:02 AM | #16 |
Drives: 2016 Camaro RS 1LT 2.0L Turbo Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 349
|
The four banger crowd is ruthlesssss.
I haven't even got to test drive an LGX Camaro yet but I want to! The engines have pretty different powerbands too which I'd like to feel out the LGX powerband. LGX sounds better IMO lol definitely debatable since we have that turbo sound ❤️
__________________
'16 1LT 2.0T RS - Catless DP, Intake, Tune/ Eibach springs FE3 shocks/ BMR front bar FE4 rear bar/ Xpel'd front end, CP Reload sealed/ Radenso Pro M.
|
01-29-2018, 12:13 AM | #17 | |
603 Camaros
Drives: 2017 NGM I4 1LT Coupe Join Date: May 2012
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 6,779
|
Quote:
__________________
MY 2017 I4 CAMARO BUILD JOURNAL | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | 316RWHP - 385 RWTQ HPTUNERS DYNO TUNE | 12.693s @ 105MPH 1/4 Mile Last edited by Evil-Bee-NH; 01-29-2018 at 01:22 AM. |
|
01-29-2018, 12:20 PM | #18 |
Drives: Camaro like Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
|
Not sure how a question about octane turned into a v6 vs T2.0 pissing match but to bring it back inline...
GM actually recommends 99 octane for the LTG when tracking the car. So in short, the higher the octane the better and never run 87 |
01-29-2018, 12:43 PM | #19 |
603 Camaros
Drives: 2017 NGM I4 1LT Coupe Join Date: May 2012
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 6,779
|
Sadly trying to keep it from being the pissing match it was . You should run premium in these cars no matter the trim lvl and engine choice for so many reasons least among tjem is fuel mileage because in the long run running premium will probably help the car run smoother longer.
__________________
MY 2017 I4 CAMARO BUILD JOURNAL | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | 316RWHP - 385 RWTQ HPTUNERS DYNO TUNE | 12.693s @ 105MPH 1/4 Mile |
01-29-2018, 01:11 PM | #20 | |
Drives: Love the one you're with Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
|
Quote:
I could see running 93 in the V6 if you are running it hard and GM does recommended it for that purpose. For normal everyday use 93 is a waste of money. If it was required for everyday use , GM would list it as such. |
|
01-30-2018, 02:00 AM | #21 |
I run 91 as that is what is readily available around me. I have experienced no issues. But I wouldn't put in anything lower.
|
|
01-30-2018, 10:33 PM | #22 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro; 2017 Acadia Denali Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago, IL/Williams Bay WI
Posts: 1,022
|
A lot of people don't have the first clue how fuel works. Here are two indisputable facts.
1. "Premium" does not mean 'better'. 2. "Premium" does not mean 'more power'. Octane isn't magical fairy dust. It is purely a measurement of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. You want to run the lowest octane fuel possible, safely. Higher octane fuels as a function of their design are more difficult to light off. Your ECU doesn't know, or particularly care what octane fuel is in the tank. All it cares about is knock. I'm not talking about slight blips of Knock Retard during a WOT pass of drag racing. I mean real, actual, piston rocking, bang, bang, boom, KNOCK. That is another typically misunderstood section of the ECU. Most don't understand how incredibly sensitive knock sensors are, nor do they comprehend what the sensor is listening for. Your knock sensor is listening for the harmonic noises typically associated PRIOR to real knock events occurring. There is a super simple test to identify if you have real knock, ready for it? Is your CEL currently blinking? No- Then you probably don't have real knock. Yes- Then, duh, take your foot off the gas and find the problem. I know this is a super simplistic explanation, and it's not intended for anyone with advanced knowledge of how the ECU works. Back to octane ratings... There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with running 87. Not a single damned thing. Personally, I run it from November to April without issue. Heat is the root cause of pre-ignition. If it's not hot outside, and the engine isn't running hot for a different reason, there is no issue with using 87. If you're planning driving aggressively with judicious throttle applications for an extended period of time, obviously you should run a higher octane fuel as there will be more heat in the engine. For anyone just commuting to work and running errands, there is absolutely no reason to spend an extra $1+ per gallon. Remember that the LTG isn't a super high compression race engine. It's a regular street engine, driven by regular average people. GM knows that, and tunes the engine accordingly.
__________________
This is in no way a personal attack or confrontation, and is not necessarily the view
of the management or sponsors, and the thoughts contained herein are mine, and is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings or ruin their delicate self esteem, or to invalidate anyone's personal views or thoughts, nor is it a condemnation of anyone's race, religion, sex, sexual preferences, handicaps, or intellectual abilities. |
01-30-2018, 11:05 PM | #23 | |
Drives: Love the one you're with Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
|
Quote:
|
|
01-31-2018, 03:41 AM | #24 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro; 2017 Acadia Denali Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago, IL/Williams Bay WI
Posts: 1,022
|
Quote:
As far as 87 octane reducing performance... Like I said, the ECU doesn't know or care what fuel you put in the tank. A very simplistic view is that there are only 2 timing strategies contained in the ECU (High Octane Timing Table and Low Octane Timing Table), and the ECU will always try to place you onto the higher map, until it senses pre-ignition harmonic events occurring regularly. As such, you wouldn't notice an actual power difference unless you tried to drive your car at 10/10ths for an extended period of time on a warm/hot day. Even then, table modifiers would come into play as well to further control pre-ignition on the High Octane Timing Table before dropping you to Low Octane Timing Table hell. Be mindful that the difference in power being discussed here is less than 10! I should have been clearer in my last post, don't run 87 if you're expecting to do any 'spirited' driving. My point is that you don't need 93 for typical daily driving activities, and especially not during cooler outside temps. It may only be a .35 cent difference where you're located, but when I filled up the SS today, it was $1.35 difference!!!! Running 87 during the winter will save me $832 in fuel costs. $1.00 per gallon difference on average X 16 gallons typical fill up X 26 weeks = $832!!! That's an extra weekend in Vegas for the little lady and I!!!
__________________
This is in no way a personal attack or confrontation, and is not necessarily the view
of the management or sponsors, and the thoughts contained herein are mine, and is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings or ruin their delicate self esteem, or to invalidate anyone's personal views or thoughts, nor is it a condemnation of anyone's race, religion, sex, sexual preferences, handicaps, or intellectual abilities. |
|
02-01-2018, 09:19 AM | #25 |
Drives: Camaro like Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
|
Yes, actually it does. And in two places for that matter. Well, to be transparent, it does in my ATS manual. Perhaps GM assumes no one would track a Camaro (I kid I kid!)
Last edited by dekes1; 02-01-2018 at 09:29 AM. |
02-01-2018, 09:55 AM | #26 |
Drives: Love the one you're with Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
|
Yeah, i can't find that in any publications for the Camaro. Is the 2.0t the same spec in the ATS as the Camaro? I dont know because I dont follow Caddies much. Its odd to me that even the supercharged ZL1 only requires 93 even for competitive driving. But if you read Chicago Tommy's post above you'll see why that is. Our entire point is that 87 is only required in the V6 for normal use and anything else is a waste of money. That's why I see no reason to own the turbo four unless your intensions are to modify it.
|
02-01-2018, 10:26 AM | #27 |
Drives: 16' 2SS, 06' Silverado SS Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 345
|
|
02-01-2018, 10:53 AM | #28 | |
Drives: Camaro like Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
|
Quote:
To your question, the Caddy and Camaro LTG are identical in every way including the tune. |
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|