[craigss50]

Originally Posted by fastball

In other words, it requires it.

Never use anything less than 91 unless you want issues. Maybe not today but a few miles or years down the road.

From page 250 of the owners manual:

For the LTG 2.0L L4 turbo or the
LT1 6.2L V8 engines, premium
unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM
specification D4814 with a posted
octane rating of 93 is highly
recommended for best performance
and fuel economy. Unleaded
gasoline with an octane rated as low
as 87 can be used. Using unleaded
gasoline rated below 93 octane,
however, will lead to reduced
acceleration and fuel economy.
If knocking occurs, use a gasoline
rated at 93 octane as soon as
possible, otherwise, the engine
could be damaged. If heavy
knocking is heard when using
gasoline with a 93 octane rating, the
engine needs service.
For the LGX 3.6L V6 engine, use
regular unleaded gasoline meeting
ASTM specification D4814 with a
posted octane rating of 87 or higher.
Do not use gasoline with a posted
octane rating of less than 87, as this
may cause engine knock and will

lower fuel economy.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by craigss50

From page 250 of the owners manual:

For the LTG 2.0L L4 turbo or the
LT1 6.2L V8 engines, premium
unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM
specification D4814 with a posted
octane rating of 93 is highly
recommended for best performance
and fuel economy. Unleaded
gasoline with an octane rated as low
as 87 can be used. Using unleaded
gasoline rated below 93 octane,
however, will lead to reduced
acceleration and fuel economy.
If knocking occurs, use a gasoline
rated at 93 octane as soon as
possible, otherwise, the engine
could be damaged. If heavy
knocking is heard when using
gasoline with a 93 octane rating, the
engine needs service.
For the LGX 3.6L V6 engine, use
regular unleaded gasoline meeting
ASTM specification D4814 with a
posted octane rating of 87 or higher.
Do not use gasoline with a posted
octane rating of less than 87, as this
may cause engine knock and will

lower fuel economy.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Never use anything less than 93 octane in the LT1

[craigss50]

Originally Posted by fastball

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Never use anything less than 93 octane in the LT1

Agree! I never have used regular or mid grade. I didn't get and SS to worry about fuel mileage. I was just stating you could if gas prices get to be more than a person could afford.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by craigss50

Agree! I never have used regular or mid grade. I didn't get and SS to worry about fuel mileage. I was just stating you could if gas prices get to be more than a person could afford.

If the cost difference between regular and premium is the difference between being able to afford the operation of the car, it's time to look into selling the car or reducing how often it is driven and drive a more economical car as a daily.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by craigss50

Agree! I never have used regular or mid grade. I didn't get and SS to worry about fuel mileage. I was just stating you could if gas prices get to be more than a person could afford.

Read between the lines. They’re telling you if you are stranded in the middle of Bumtard Ireland with no land phones and no cell phone coverage and you have 10 miles left on your tank of fuel and the only gas station for 200 miles has one single pump with 87 octane, you can use it for that one time and your car won’t blow up.

Damage will occur if 87 is used even 20% of the time.

Just don’t use it no matter how much fuel costs. An extra 10 bucks to fill the tank is cheaper than new fuel injectors, fuel pump, or a top end rebuild.

[Camarolover85]

Originally Posted by NYJets12

I wouldn’t buy a turbo even if you paid me . I don’t care what kind it is. In the 90’s I think, they were all junk. Who knows if they’ll last these days. Only time will tell.

Same here.

[Camarolover85]

Originally Posted by fastball

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Never use anything less than 93 octane in the LT1

93 doesn’t even exist In colorado lol

[Roostie]

My problem with the turbo 4 is that they don't sound good and usually don't like to rev. So while this 2.7 is powerful, it would need to be more rev-happy and have a good exhaust note to interest me over the V6.

My two turbo 4 cars were a 1988 Mazda 323 GTX and a 2003 Mitsubishi Evo 8. Both got aftermarket exhausts and sounded just O.K.

[Michael2000]

A big 4 cylinder engine like that would shake a Camaro to pieces. Trucks are heavy, and have a separate frame the engine is mounted to. In the Camaro, hang on to your tooth fillings. That sounds miserable.

[Bongos2U]

Originally Posted by Camarolover85

93 doesn’t even exist In colorado lol

Only a few places in California sell any 93 octane or above. Looks like most people in Cali and everybody in Colorado can't experience the full power of the LT1 ??

All this time I thought the Turbo 4 and LT1 were made to run on 91 octane (which is plentiful in California). Guess I was wrong.

[Bongos2U]

Originally Posted by NYJets12

I wouldn’t buy a turbo even if you paid me . I don’t care what kind it is. In the 90’s I think, they were all junk. Who knows if they’ll last these days. Only time will tell.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how the Ford Ecoboost F-150s compare to their V8 offerings 20 years from now.

Several Chevy and Ford V8 equipped trucks are going strong after 20 years. I don't think the turbocharged ones will fare that well 20 years from now.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Bongos2U

Yes, it will be interesting to see how the Ford Ecoboost F-150s compare to their V8 offerings 20 years from now.

Several Chevy and Ford V8 equipped trucks are going strong after 20 years. I don't think the turbocharged ones will fare that well 20 years from now.

It’s still common to see V8 F150s and Silverados from the 90s with 200,000 miles on the clock.

Fuel economy be damned. If you want a reliable workhorse truck you buy the V8.

[motorhead]

We are in the late 80's early 90's all over again. We bought our fisrt foreign car in a Kia Sorrento because my wife nor I wanted a turbo four banger. I lived through that crap once before. No thank you.
Never neither the equinox nor the escape offer a V6 anymore. I mm appreciate what they are doing with these, but I havent driven any four cylinder yet that had the refined feel of the modern V6. We drove both the new 2.0T Equinox and the new Escape. Blender central. I had a 2011 3.5 ecoboost f150 which was very refinded. Why wouldnt they do a 2.7 V6. Like ford? That would be much better in a heavy truck. I would rather have an all electric over a turbo 4.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Michael2000

A big 4 cylinder engine like that would shake a Camaro to pieces. Trucks are heavy, and have a separate frame the engine is mounted to. In the Camaro, hang on to your tooth fillings. That sounds miserable.

Especially a long-stroke 4. ↓↓↓

Originally Posted by Dethsupp0rt

3.63" x 4.01".

Also has AFM, so it can run on 2 cylinders.

Just when you thought that a long-stroke 4 was a bad choice for a sporty car . . . the potential is there to make it even worse.


Norm