Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
dave@hennessey
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-12-2009, 09:20 PM   #1
jeansonne627
 
jeansonne627's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro V6 RS IBM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 42
Anyone running something other than 87?

I know I've read that the V6 was designed to be able to run on regular 87 unleaded but is the 87 the optimum fuel to be used? I read in the manual that it says 87 or higher so would putting a 91 or 93 perform better? Just put my first tank in and went with 87 to be safe
jeansonne627 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 09:38 PM   #2
Milk 1027
Camaro➎ moderator
 
Milk 1027's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 BLK 1LE
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,567
87 will never be better than 91 or 93 depending on where you live.
Simple as that.
__________________
Milk 1027 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 09:41 PM   #3
jeansonne627
 
jeansonne627's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro V6 RS IBM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 42
just didn't know if was gonna be causing some computer problem like the ones the L99's are having with their first tank not being the right fuel
jeansonne627 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 09:51 PM   #4
Milk 1027
Camaro➎ moderator
 
Milk 1027's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 BLK 1LE
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,567
That's because the dealer used 87 instead of 91 or 93.

If you use a higher octane from the beginning, you shouldn't have a problem.
__________________
Milk 1027 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 11:08 PM   #5
PieNsky

 
PieNsky's Avatar
 
Drives: Victory Red 1LS
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Louisville,KY
Posts: 1,929
It was designed to run on the lower octane and using the higher would not provide additional hp. The higher octane has to do with the controlled burn needed for higher compressions however the direct injection negates that need for its use.
PieNsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 11:15 PM   #6
eckerj
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 33
Have had the car for 7500 miles and put nothing
but 93 octane in it from the beginning. Last tank,
I filled up with 87 from BP.... Ended up getting
29.9 mpg for 472 miles. Quite the shocker..
eckerj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2009, 10:26 AM   #7
MontyCarlo

 
MontyCarlo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2LT/RS auto IBM
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,259
In Iowa the cheapest gas is 89 octane with some added ethanol. That's what I've been using.
__________________
FAQs:
1. No, I do not have any strong opinions about the Monte Carlo.
2. Yes, I know what my name looks like.
3. Yes, but the medication helps immensely.

2LT/RS IBM/gray #21,895 ordered April 21st, delivered July 3rd
MontyCarlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2009, 02:07 PM   #8
FISHTAIL
 
FISHTAIL's Avatar
 
Drives: Sedan & 2SS / RS
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 377
I'm glad someone has addressed this issue because I was wondering myself if there would be some hidden HP behind the higher octane fuel. I have 2,100 miles on my Camaro to date and all I've used is 87 octane from Chevron.
__________________
Drives: 2012 2SS/Black/RS/A6
FISHTAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2009, 02:12 PM   #9
FISHTAIL
 
FISHTAIL's Avatar
 
Drives: Sedan & 2SS / RS
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 377
Wonder what the Cadillac guys recommend for the CTS on their manual. After all they run their engine with synthetic from factory maybe they recommend a higher octane as well.
__________________
Drives: 2012 2SS/Black/RS/A6
FISHTAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2009, 03:53 PM   #10
glambert1
HOMER
 
glambert1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 camaro 2LT RS SIM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 527
here is something interesting for yous I've known about this for years ,

32
commentsHigh Octane Gas Myth
by Jim Wang Print ShareThis

I know a lot of people who believe that higher octane gas is “better” for your car than lower octane gas, as if the words premium next to the higher ratings actually mean the gasoline is better for your car. It isn’t. If you believe it is, don’t be dismayed, you’ve simply become accustomed to reading the words “premium” next to the label and believing the great marketing machine that helped create over $10B in 4th quarter profits for companies like Exxon-Mobil. The octane rating of gasoline is a measure of how much you can compress the gasoline before it ignites, not how “good” it is.

Cars that require higher octane gas actually need that higher priced gas because the engines compress the fuel more before it ignites it. If you put regular gas in a car that requires premium, the gas will prematurely ignite when it’s being compressed and the engine will give you a knocking sound. This is bad for your car.

Chemists perk up…
For all you burgeoning chemists, gasoline is basically octane and heptane, or hydrocarbon chains that are 8 (octane) or 7 (heptane) carbons long. Octane simply can be compressed better (i.e. without the exploding part, at least at the same levels of pressure) than heptane. An octane rating of 87 means it’s 87% octane.

It’s a “rating”…
The reason why higher octane is more expensive is because it’s harder to refine the gasoline so that it contains more octane. Now let’s add another wrinkle… the octane is actually an octane rating, or it behaves as gasoline with that percentage octane would behave but might not actually have that much octane in it. While that doesn’t really matter, it does mean that the gasoline you use could have a mix of other things in it (still real gas though) to give it properties of a higher octane without actually having more octane
__________________
....do it yourself and be proud when you brag about your mods...
glambert1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 06:55 PM   #11
squat

 
Drives: 2011 Dodge Charger
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 1,070
I only run what is specified in the manual. Like others have said, the issue is with the PCM controlling the burn, higher than 87 wouldn't give me any extra benefit because my PCM is tuned for 87. Now if I were to get a tune for my car (if one ever came out) and was able to switch the timing then I would use different octane.

On a side note, it's interesting that octane is not the proper chemical term for the carbon chain. It's a pentane with 3 extra carbons and looks like this:




It's correct chemical name is 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane. The 2/2/4 denote where the methyl groups are on the pentane chain. I suppose they call it octane because technically it still has 8 carbons, and octane rolls off the tongue better than 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane.
__________________
2011 Dodge Charger

Last edited by squat; 09-15-2009 at 06:58 PM. Reason: edit because my molecule wasn't right so I found a picture
squat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 07:14 PM   #12
Susantroy1
To All Veterans
 
Susantroy1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2LT RS Inferno Orange
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Port Richey
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by squat View Post
I only run what is specified in the manual. Like others have said, the issue is with the PCM controlling the burn, higher than 87 wouldn't give me any extra benefit because my PCM is tuned for 87. Now if I were to get a tune for my car (if one ever came out) and was able to switch the timing then I would use different octane.

On a side note, it's interesting that octane is not the proper chemical term for the carbon chain. It's a pentane with 3 extra carbons and looks like this:




It's correct chemical name is 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane. The 2/2/4 denote where the methyl groups are on the pentane chain. I suppose they call it octane because technically it still has 8 carbons, and octane rolls off the tongue better than 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane.
What the hell did you just say..... (way above this olé' motor head) all I know is Octane is simply a rating, nothing more nothing less, if you put higher octane in a motor designed for a lower rated fuel, that will produce less than optimum results adding carbon buildup in the valve-train due to unburnt fuel. also just the opposite in burning lower Grade octane to higher grade required engines..... pre detonation = loss of power and engine knock (fuel igniting to early in the compression stage)
Susantroy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 07:42 PM   #13
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,745
but what if you are getting some spark knock with 87... spark knock sensors will pick up the knock before you can hear it in the cabin... so the ECU can end up pulling some timing before you hear it, reducing performance...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 07:46 PM   #14
Susantroy1
To All Veterans
 
Susantroy1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2LT RS Inferno Orange
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Port Richey
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
but what if you are getting some spark knock with 87... spark knock sensors will pick up the knock before you can hear it in the cabin... so the ECU can end up pulling some timing before you hear it, reducing performance...
Susantroy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camaro stops running 25th anniversary 3rd Generation Camaros 18 08-24-2015 12:18 PM
Disabling Daytime Running Light (DRL) buddylok Canada 7 10-07-2009 08:09 AM
What fuel are you running ? larietrope 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 13 07-10-2009 04:23 PM
Running Rough almodovarjose 4th Generation Camaros 20 03-23-2009 10:44 PM
LED tails, running lights mondain Cosmetics and Lighting Modification Discussions 13 02-16-2009 02:39 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.


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