01-15-2018, 01:11 PM | #15 | |
Drives: '17 Camaro 2SS & '99 Camaro Z28 Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,829
|
Quote:
Here though it's different than SoCal. The price difference in 87 and 93 is about $0.50 to $0.75 difference.. and my wallet feels it too. Only way I'm using premium regularly is if I get an SS |
|
02-27-2018, 02:59 PM | #16 |
Drives: 2016 1LT RS Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: IL
Posts: 32
|
I've put on 44k miles on mine (still even the original tires!) so far from my experience, my car has been reliable on all blends. The car has had its mix of 87 to 93. My basic rule of thumb...Daily driving/road trips 87, spirited..93
|
02-28-2018, 01:13 PM | #17 |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2019 Dodge Challenger Scat Pack Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Frederick, Colorado
Posts: 1,245
|
What’s 93? Never heard of it.
|
02-28-2018, 07:44 PM | #18 |
Drives: 2016 1LT RS Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: IL
Posts: 32
|
|
03-19-2018, 06:28 AM | #19 |
Drives: '17- 1ag37 V6 traded, for 1SS 2018! Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: MA
Posts: 469
|
+1.
Practically every vehicle I've driven past 15-20 years with alcohol in it, engine runs better, tranny shifts less, mileage increased. But money wise it works out about a wash. I had an early model Tundra PU, and one winter it would hardly start after a steady diet of below top tier 87 gas. One tank of premium 91 shell cured that; almost immediately Just my 2 micrograms, ymmv. |
03-19-2018, 06:31 AM | #20 |
Drives: '17- 1ag37 V6 traded, for 1SS 2018! Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: MA
Posts: 469
|
Oh, and I had the opportunity to get some 91 sans the alcohol, but a brand I couldn't identify. No difference in the car/truck, but wonders with leaned-out chainsaws/boat/lawnmowers. These definitely don't like to burn booze mixtures!
|
03-19-2018, 08:07 PM | #21 |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: California
Posts: 3,491
|
Premium only. premium in my v8 92 camaro, premium in my 2001 z28 camaro, and premium in my 2016 v6 camaro.
My reasons are : 1. I dont commute 2 hours every single day 2. The difference in price is a small lunch every two weeks. 3. More advanced timing is always worth it Plus, i'm sure in the icy cold (used to live in the north east) the fuel attracts more than it's fair share of water and i'd rather it dilute 93/91 octane than 87. |
03-20-2018, 01:42 PM | #22 |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 648
|
I have been running 91 in my car for 4-5 tanks now. I have never used premium in any of my cars and did this just as a "let's see what happens". The only difference I have noticed is engine noise. To me, it's quite evident. Far less pinging during hard acceleration. Other than that, nothing else seems to have changed. No better performance or mpg.
|
03-21-2018, 07:41 AM | #23 |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2017 Camaro Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 622
|
The knock sensor will detect pinging quiet enough that you can't hear. So the fact you get audible pinging means the car has been pulling timing for a while. It takes quite a few drive cycles for the PCM to add timing back and give you more power. How much power just depends on how aggressive the factory tune is, but it may not be butt dyno noticeable.
|
04-07-2019, 08:46 AM | #24 |
Drives: 22 Convertible V8 LT1 Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Jensen Beach, Florida
Posts: 214
|
I ran some 87 and saw my mpg increase!
|
04-08-2019, 07:09 AM | #25 |
Banned
Drives: Camaro Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Indiana
Posts: 215
|
|
04-08-2019, 07:52 AM | #26 |
Drives: 22 Convertible V8 LT1 Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Jensen Beach, Florida
Posts: 214
|
I've been commuting the same general routes for 5000 miles on 93 with avg of 19mpg. My first round trip on 87, 25mpg. According to the cars computer.
|
04-08-2019, 09:03 AM | #27 |
Banned
Drives: Camaro Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Indiana
Posts: 215
|
My computer varies by 3mpg on the same 40 mile trip daily. It's highly inaccurate. You're also dealing with warmer weather, quicker warm up times, and cars get better economy with higher temps. There is not going to be a 5mpg difference in just gas.
|
04-08-2019, 03:52 PM | #28 |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: California
Posts: 3,491
|
the car's computer measures mpg based on odometer and injector duty cycles over time.
I'd consider it far more accurate than the implication that you're able to 100% duplicate the exact driving conditions day after day so that the engine uses exactly the same amount of fuel each time. Further, fuel octane doesn't change mpg. Fuel density can, and in general, higher octane fuel is regular fuel mixed with alcohol to inflate the octane ratings and alcohol has a lower energy density than gasoline, but the addition of alcohol is not guaranteed in a given grade of fuel, 93 etc existed before alcohol started being added wide-spread in most fuel. So that will vary state to state and even supplier. My mid 40mpg 50 mile span runs (measured both ways ) were done with 91. The amount of alcohol difference in 87 vs 91/93 is going to be insignificant in terms of overall energy density. You get a bigger difference between winter and summer blended fuels and even those are on the order of maybe 10% less mileage. The primary impact octane will have is in timing. 91/93 will let the engine use it's more aggressive timing tables and retain advanced timing over a wider rpm band than lower octane fuel will. How often you make use of that aggressive timing determines how much "feeling" you get when determining if there's a difference or not between the two. If you're heavy on the acceleration all the time, you'll feel a difference (and avg very low mpg - obviously) ...if you're light on it, you'll never notice a difference. |
|
|
Post Reply
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|