03-19-2019, 01:11 AM | #29 |
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. |
03-19-2019, 08:44 PM | #30 | |
Drives: '17 Camaro 2SS & '99 Camaro Z28 Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,828
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-19-2019, 09:18 PM | #31 |
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'? |
03-19-2019, 09:24 PM | #32 |
DaBatMan
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 |
03-19-2019, 09:38 PM | #33 | ||
Drives: Really Slow Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 56,944
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
03-19-2019, 09:47 PM | #34 |
DaBatMan
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 |
03-19-2019, 10:01 PM | #35 |
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 962
|
My dads old E90 with the N54 and my exhaust tips getting soot on them don’t support that claim...
|
03-19-2019, 10:13 PM | #36 |
DaBatMan
Drives: "Candi" 2018 2LT RS M6 Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Jax, FL
Posts: 51
|
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 |
03-19-2019, 10:33 PM | #37 |
STD free
Drives: 2018 Bright Yellow LGX M6 RS NPP Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 423
|
Last edited by karmatourer; 03-20-2019 at 02:08 AM. |
03-19-2019, 10:41 PM | #38 |
Drives: Really Slow Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 56,944
|
Hahahaha! That.....is.....siiiiiiiiick!
__________________
|
03-20-2019, 12:34 AM | #39 | |
Drives: '17 Camaro 2SS & '99 Camaro Z28 Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,828
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-20-2019, 08:04 AM | #40 |
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. |
03-20-2019, 09:35 AM | #41 | |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: California
Posts: 3,491
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-20-2019, 11:36 AM | #42 |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2019 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT 2.0T Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 330
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|