Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


Bigwormgraphix


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-19-2019, 01:11 AM   #29
cellsafemode


 
cellsafemode's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: California
Posts: 3,491
you can also drive just fine with conventional oil. But why when full synth goes well beyond fine.

you can drive normally in 87, sure. But you can drive like you stole it with higher octane fuels much better. The timing advance possible with higher octane is not fake nor is it insignificant in aggressive driving.

when the difference in price is insignificant, the choice is clear. What defines that for each person is all that varies.
cellsafemode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 08:44 PM   #30
Need4Camaro

 
Drives: '17 Camaro 2SS & '99 Camaro Z28
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by cellsafemode View Post
you can also drive just fine with conventional oil. But why when full synth goes well beyond fine.

you can drive normally in 87, sure. But you can drive like you stole it with higher octane fuels much better. The timing advance possible with higher octane is not fake nor is it insignificant in aggressive driving.

when the difference in price is insignificant, the choice is clear. What defines that for each person is all that varies.
Changing oil every 5k miles and driving in non-extreme temperatures, there's no benefit whatsoever to using synthetic ...none... The only thing Synthetic is good for is changing at longer intervals because it resists breaking down, or lubricating better at sub zero temperatures which 99% of Camaro owners won't expose their vehicles to, the rest is marketing.

Premium fuel where I live is a good $0.60 - $0.80 higher than Regular. The difference in performance is negligible at best and won't be felt unless you're flogging it light to light. If I cared about performance that greatly where I had to feel every last pony to put premium in a car designed for 87 I would just upgrade to to an SS. I just don't see the point of throwing premium in the 3.6L V6 unless you're running F.I. or a cam. It makes more than enough power as is with 87 and keeps up quite fine with the older V8's (that do REQUIRE premium)...Its a waste of money for that motor unless its modded and/or tuned.
Need4Camaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 09:18 PM   #31
17rsvert
 
17rsvert's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 HBM 2LT RS Convertible V6 A8
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: NJ
Posts: 654
So there are two trains of thought here; those that say there is no difference using higher octane and it's just a waste of money, and those who claim you will get more power and/or better milage.

To those who claim you get more power: what actual evidence do you have? Are there published dyno reports? Are there quarter mile times using each? Or is this just 'I know it's better because I can feel it'?
17rsvert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 09:24 PM   #32
Mr_Jones
DaBatMan
 
Mr_Jones's Avatar
 
Drives: "Candi" 2018 2LT RS M6
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Jax, FL
Posts: 51
__________________
"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride"
MODS: husky floor liners / uniden r7 / plain jane otherwise...

Current Wives: 2018 Camaro 2LT RS MT / 2008 Avalanche 5.3L AFM

Ex-GF's: 2010 VW CC Lux 2.0T/ 2004 Mazda RX-8 GT MT/ 2001 A6 3.0T MT/ 2001 Navigator / 1995 Accord EX MT
Mr_Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 09:38 PM   #33
PoorMansCamaro



 
PoorMansCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Really Slow
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 56,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by 17rsvert View Post
So there are two trains of thought here; those that say there is no difference using higher octane and it's just a waste of money, and those who claim you will get more power and/or better milage.

To those who claim you get more power: what actual evidence do you have? Are there published dyno reports? Are there quarter mile times using each? Or is this just 'I know it's better because I can feel it'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
LOTS of endless debate on this. My experience has to do with the last gen's LLT and LFX engines, so this may not apply to the LGX, but I'd bet it does more than it doesn't.

The short of it. The V6 is designed to run on regular and it should run just fine on regular.

But that does not mean it is tuned and designed for only 87. It simply means the car has the knock resistance and monitoring, and tune tables required for the car to run good and safely on 87. It does not mean the car cannot and will not run better on a higher octane gas.

Evidence:

1) It was proven on the LLT/LFX that the computer detected less knock and pulled less timing on 93 compared to 87 (could have been 91...not really sure any more)
2) A tuner showed us that the LLT/LLT have multiple tables of timing based on the octane level detected.
3) A dyno run showed only a very minor (negligible) gain on 93 versus 87, but the pulls were consistently smoother.



So take that as you will. 93 is not going to wildly change the power on the V6....but if you are someone that wants what I'd consider the happiest running engine, I feel it is the way to go.
.
__________________
PoorMansCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 09:47 PM   #34
Mr_Jones
DaBatMan
 
Mr_Jones's Avatar
 
Drives: "Candi" 2018 2LT RS M6
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Jax, FL
Posts: 51
Quick question... does 93 burn cleaner?

I ask because my ole man is a firm believer in high test. He currently has a '98 4Runner (purchased new back in '97) that has received 93 octane exclusively. He's always pointing out how clean his tail pipe is.
__________________
"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride"
MODS: husky floor liners / uniden r7 / plain jane otherwise...

Current Wives: 2018 Camaro 2LT RS MT / 2008 Avalanche 5.3L AFM

Ex-GF's: 2010 VW CC Lux 2.0T/ 2004 Mazda RX-8 GT MT/ 2001 A6 3.0T MT/ 2001 Navigator / 1995 Accord EX MT
Mr_Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 10:01 PM   #35
ChevyRules

 
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Jones View Post
Quick question... does 93 burn cleaner?

I ask because my ole man is a firm believer in high test. He currently has a '98 4Runner (purchased new back in '97) that has received 93 octane exclusively. He's always pointing out how clean his tail pipe is.
My dads old E90 with the N54 and my exhaust tips getting soot on them don’t support that claim...
ChevyRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 10:13 PM   #36
Mr_Jones
DaBatMan
 
Mr_Jones's Avatar
 
Drives: "Candi" 2018 2LT RS M6
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Jax, FL
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevyRules View Post
My dads old E90 with the N54 and my exhaust tips getting soot on them don’t support that claim...
Hmmmmm, I guess I'll find out in another few thousand miles.
__________________
"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride"
MODS: husky floor liners / uniden r7 / plain jane otherwise...

Current Wives: 2018 Camaro 2LT RS MT / 2008 Avalanche 5.3L AFM

Ex-GF's: 2010 VW CC Lux 2.0T/ 2004 Mazda RX-8 GT MT/ 2001 A6 3.0T MT/ 2001 Navigator / 1995 Accord EX MT
Mr_Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 10:33 PM   #37
karmatourer
STD free
 
karmatourer's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Bright Yellow LGX M6 RS NPP
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro View Post
.
My neighbor's golf cart. I might buy it soon.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by karmatourer; 03-20-2019 at 02:08 AM.
karmatourer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 10:41 PM   #38
PoorMansCamaro



 
PoorMansCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Really Slow
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 56,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmatourer View Post
My neighbor's golf cart. I might buy if soon.
Hahahaha! That.....is.....siiiiiiiiick!
__________________
PoorMansCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 12:34 AM   #39
Need4Camaro

 
Drives: '17 Camaro 2SS & '99 Camaro Z28
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by 17rsvert View Post
So there are two trains of thought here; those that say there is no difference using higher octane and it's just a waste of money, and those who claim you will get more power and/or better milage.

To those who claim you get more power: what actual evidence do you have? Are there published dyno reports? Are there quarter mile times using each? Or is this just 'I know it's better because I can feel it'?
So to reiterate, I'm not stating you won't get a performance boost with 93... but people are claiming that to get over 30 MPG in these cars you HAVE to run 93 and thats ridiculous. I've gotten well into the 40 MPG mark with 87 and I wasn't driving like a grandma either. People seem to state this to justify putting 'the best' in their car and thats fine and all...but to say the car won't perform on what its designed for (87) is bogus. I've never had a problem performance wise and fuel efficiency wise with 87. It pulled nearly as strong as my LS1 and it got great fuel mileage. Why do I need to spend more for gas for maybe 2 more HP?

You will likely see a gain in economy and performance with 93, but enough to offset the costs? No. It isn't going to do anything ground breaking. It runs just slightly smoother during hard accelerations but most times I could not feel the difference.

Now if we took this argument to an SS, which was DESIGNED for 93... and put 87 in it, then yes... you're definitely going to have problems.. but the V6 was not initially designed for 93...it can use it and it does benefit from it but its not going to be a huge difference. You will need to be flogging it everywhere to really notice it and thats not exactly something I do when I'm daily driving.
Need4Camaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 08:04 AM   #40
whiteboyblues2001

 
whiteboyblues2001's Avatar
 
Drives: 1SS, A8, MRC, NPP, Blade Spoiler
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 1,485
Here's the deal:

The octane required has mainly to do with the compression ratio the engine has, and whether it has boost and/or direct injection.

Too high a compression (from boost or from compression ratio), then the engine will ping (which stands for Pre-Ignition). This means the air/fuel mixture will ignight from the compression and before the spark would have ignited it.

If this happens too soon, the ignition happens while the piston is still coming up, and will for a brief time, fight against the correct rotation of the crankshaft. Not to mention, it is a very uneven and unpredictable burn process. So, with modern engines, there is a knock sensor, and if there is any knock(ping) detected, it will advance the timing, and just give it a spark sooner. This cures the uneven and unpredictable burn, but it is still happening too soon and fighting the proper crank rotation.

So, how does this apply to modern eninges? Well, it depends on the engine. Most engines are designed to run 87 octane without pulling any timing. But, some engines are high enough compression that it CAN run 87, but the computer pulls (advances) the timing a bit to deal with ping.

So, how do we tell if the V6 in the Camaro can benifit from higher octane? Just put any OBDII reader in that can measure timing, and see what happens with 87 octane. If the engine is pulling timing, then higher octane can help a bit with performance and MPG. If the timing is not advanced from 87 octane, then there will be zero benifit from running a higher octane. It also matter how much timing gets pulled with 87 octane. If it is minimal, then higher octane would be harder to notice any difference. But some cars that recommend 87 octane pull quite a bit of timing, and can get a bit of a benifit in both HP and MPGs. It still won't be a big differnce, but you CAN feel it in some instances.

Would it matter to 0-60 times or 1/4 mile? Probably not.

But if you really want to know, find out how much timing gets pulled on 87 octane, and that will be a good indicator if higher octane would matter or not. And even if it does, it won't be a huge difference.

AND, by the way, running 87 won't hurt anything for sure.
whiteboyblues2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 09:35 AM   #41
cellsafemode


 
cellsafemode's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: California
Posts: 3,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001 View Post
Here's the deal:

The octane required has mainly to do with the compression ratio the engine has, and whether it has boost and/or direct injection.

Too high a compression (from boost or from compression ratio), then the engine will ping (which stands for Pre-Ignition). This means the air/fuel mixture will ignight from the compression and before the spark would have ignited it.

If this happens too soon, the ignition happens while the piston is still coming up, and will for a brief time, fight against the correct rotation of the crankshaft. Not to mention, it is a very uneven and unpredictable burn process. So, with modern engines, there is a knock sensor, and if there is any knock(ping) detected, it will advance the timing, and just give it a spark sooner. This cures the uneven and unpredictable burn, but it is still happening too soon and fighting the proper crank rotation.

So, how does this apply to modern eninges? Well, it depends on the engine. Most engines are designed to run 87 octane without pulling any timing. But, some engines are high enough compression that it CAN run 87, but the computer pulls (advances) the timing a bit to deal with ping.

So, how do we tell if the V6 in the Camaro can benifit from higher octane? Just put any OBDII reader in that can measure timing, and see what happens with 87 octane. If the engine is pulling timing, then higher octane can help a bit with performance and MPG. If the timing is not advanced from 87 octane, then there will be zero benifit from running a higher octane. It also matter how much timing gets pulled with 87 octane. If it is minimal, then higher octane would be harder to notice any difference. But some cars that recommend 87 octane pull quite a bit of timing, and can get a bit of a benifit in both HP and MPGs. It still won't be a big differnce, but you CAN feel it in some instances.

Would it matter to 0-60 times or 1/4 mile? Probably not.

But if you really want to know, find out how much timing gets pulled on 87 octane, and that will be a good indicator if higher octane would matter or not. And even if it does, it won't be a huge difference.

AND, by the way, running 87 won't hurt anything for sure.
This has been done. A number of times. even on the 5th gen lfx ... This topic only gets brought up because there exists a population of people who need to justify being stingy.

These engines have a high octane map and a low octane map. They will try and advance timing if possible. This affects more than just peak numbers, it impacts the entire operating range of the engine and especially sudden acceleration and engines under low rpm load (going uphill, etc). There's no black magic or mystery to be solved here.
The only variable is if the owner really considers 25 to 40 cents a gallon a deal breaker.
cellsafemode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 11:36 AM   #42
zts1986
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2019 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT 2.0T
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmatourer View Post
My neighbor's golf cart. I might buy it soon.
Go Bills
zts1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.