08-02-2007, 03:57 PM | #29 |
Go Rays!
Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,533
|
True, I was being slightly sarcastic....but only slightly.
If I went to Honda with my brand new CRV, and the manual rates it at 87 Octane, and they tell me they can't fix the problem my ECU is having keeping the engine running, so I have to pay an extra 10-20 cents to the gallon per tank of gas...I'd be raising hell, especially this day and age! |
08-02-2007, 04:35 PM | #30 | |
Drives: MINI Cooper S Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 284
|
Quote:
This is pretty accurate... a very detailed description is here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating> The only difference I would add to your description is that the Octane rating you read on the pump is an equivalence-to-measured-percentage rating. I.E. the 92 Octane gas you are buying has the equivalent knock-performance of a fuel composed of 92% ISO-OCTANE and 8% HEPTANE. Also, the US publishes an average octane number, comprised of the RON and MON ratings... but you can read more about this after the link. Anyway, I know that in my MINI Cooper S (Supercharged Inline 4) I lose about 40hp using 87 vs. 94 Octane fuel (on a chassis dyno). And it runs like sh!t... but conversely it doesn't like to start when its cold on high octane fuel (ECU is a sh!tty design, and can't compensate at startup... damn british electronics! :-) ) I'd rather a rough cold-idle over the loss of performance! It's had 94 since they day it was delivered! ~LSx |
|
08-02-2007, 04:45 PM | #31 | |||
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
I'm not trying to pick on you Eisenhower, You just made a few points that ...well, didn't seem that sharp to me...(get it points; and sharp...get it ) Not really that was a joke... Really, I just wanted some clarification on some of your posts...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And fuel with Additives CAN be good, but put too much crap in, and it's not all that good anymore. The cleaners can do more harm then good in some cars. I don't know which specifically, I just know that happens. And as for the question that started this really moot argument. If a manufacturer "suggests", or "reccomends", a high-grade fuel, you'd probably be alright using a lower grade. It may rob some power, but not enough to be noticed. NOT ALWAYS, THOUGH. If the manuf. "requires" a certain fuel-grade. You'd be asking for trouble putting any lower-grade fuel in there. My '79 reccomends 91 octane. But it'll run fine on 87, no knocking, pinging, or even any detectable power-loss. |
|||
08-02-2007, 05:21 PM | #32 |
I drank what?
Drives: DANGEROUSLY Join Date: May 2007
Location: check your back seat...
Posts: 416
|
Ha! You know, in all fairness I had a Lumina that I ran on nothing but 87, why? 'cause it was cheap. I think most people use 87 because it's the cheapest. I had no problems at all. I drove it all over the city, to work- whatever.
Later, I bought a '95 Acura Legend (nice car) that absolutely refused to start on anything less than 10 cranks and 20 minutes of sitting using 87. A mechanic actually recommended I start using better gas, so I tried it. Suddenly, I stopped have issues with the starting and life was good again. BUT, it could be the quality of gas at a particular gas station, as was mentioned. Now, I'm def. not an advocate of using pricier grades of petroleum. All I can tell you is what I experienced. But then again, who really cares? I'd rather talk about the LS2-LS3 |
08-02-2007, 11:41 PM | #33 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Works for me!
|
08-03-2007, 07:39 PM | #34 |
Drives: 1968 Camaro Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Naples,Florida
Posts: 184
|
I know that this has been discussed in great detail before, but, what is the difference in the L76 and the LS3. Everyone is making it sound like the L76 engine is not the one I want in my new Camaro. I want the new Camaro as bad as anyone, but do not want to trade it in after only one year to get the bigger/better engine. I am looking for thee 400+ HP engine that everone has been talking about. DAMN GM, give us a bone to chew, we need information.
|
08-03-2007, 08:35 PM | #35 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
The major Difference between the LS3 and the L76 is power. I'm no expert on the details, but the L76 is 6.0 Liters, and 367+/- hp. The LS3 is 6.2 Liters, and 428 hp.
They both have DoD, or Displacement on Demand. And I think they both have VVT, or variable valve timing. The L76 in by no means a Bad engine. 367 hp in a car is nothing to scorn. I think the biggest worry is why settle for a "weaker" engine when we could have 60 more horses. Honestly, I would be more than happy with the L76. I would like to have the LS3, but if that doesn't happen (though, I think it will) ... |
08-04-2007, 08:38 AM | #36 |
Go Rays!
Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,533
|
I handt' heard about them having VVT...but that excites me.
|
08-04-2007, 03:37 PM | #37 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
I know for SURE the L76 has VVT...see that long article I posted...But I haven't heard whether the LS3 has it or not.
|
08-07-2007, 09:38 PM | #38 |
Drives: 98 Trans am 00 Trans am 01 corvette Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 381
|
Honestly if camaro doesn't come in LS 3 i won't buy one!
Selfish yes. but why the hell would i spend that much money on something i don't want. when i could buy a 3 year old GTO and have a better FASTER car! If GM puts anything less than an LS 2 in the camaro they need pissed on. and may mustang win the war! Sadly i figure the first year will be pretty shitty cars without the best V8 even being available. just like i figure 09 or 10 the G8 will come with the LS 3 in a GXP version. If they are going to dick me on the engine i'll go to corvette or a GT500. i want a minimum of 400 HP in a car not some half assed engine from a truck.
__________________
2001 Corvette Heads,Big cam, 4:11, Custom Exhaust, MGW Shifter Baer Eradispeed +2 2 pieces rotors, Hotchkiss swaybars. and a few other little things. 1998 Trans Am A4 ( was STS turbo until the turbo and oil pump died) 2000 WS6 Trans AM under the knife ( sadly turned into long term project. |
08-07-2007, 09:43 PM | #39 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
The L76 is being put into the G8, it's no longer a "truck engine". And I'll say it again...we live in a world right now of lotsa hp, more hp, and even more hp...376hp...IS A LOT OF POWER. Sure, 400 would be nice. but the L76 is nothing to snort at, either.
In any event. I doubt the LS3 won't be in the Car...it makes too much sense to have it in there. |
08-07-2007, 11:19 PM | #40 |
Does it come in BLACK?
|
If the ls3 doesn't make it the first year for some reason i'll just wait it out. Eventually it will be an option and it just gives me that much more time to save even more money and buy the best camaro that GM has to offer. So either way it's a win/win for me cause i got all the pateince in the world at this point.
Also i though about this earlier....like with the GTO i'm sure some company will get a hold of one of the camaro's and just go nuts with it like the RA6 GTO. http://www.anthemmotors.com/PontiacGTORA6.html
__________________
Good things come to those who wait |
08-08-2007, 12:18 AM | #41 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
That's pretty awesome! I'm sure they'll pick up the Camaro and mod it. I mean look at the car! How can you keep your hands off of it?
|
08-08-2007, 07:37 AM | #42 |
Does it come in BLACK?
|
My thoughts EXACTLY!
__________________
Good things come to those who wait |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GM memo to dealers | Moose | 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions | 41 | 02-04-2010 07:33 PM |
Official Camaro Convertible CONCEPT Press Release | Tran | Camaro Convertible Forum | 12 | 11-18-2009 07:05 PM |
Detroit News panel wants GM to build Camaro concept | Tran | 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions | 12 | 03-15-2009 04:38 PM |
5th Gen Camaro LS3 info from Chevy Hi-Po...READ | TAG UR IT | Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons | 295 | 03-07-2008 10:06 AM |