Quote:
Originally Posted by brantley847
Sir, don't be ridiculous...
Don't you know? A friend of a friend's grandmothers cat was eating out of a bowl of food a local dyno shop and noticed a 5 hp increase in when utilizing 93...the cat returned to his liter box and conducted an exact replica of the dyno results in the liter mix. The owner of the cat ran to his cousin's house with the liter box to show him the results of his sister's boyfriend's Camaro.
It is a mystery that not one single person can provide a graph ...but I believe in miracles, sir.
|
Here you go. There are probably some dyno charts on the forum as well, but I'm not going to search for them all. Obviously if this much spark retard is required when running 87, the car is not using its full potential. If the V6 was for meant for 87 only, it would say "use 87 only" in the manual. Sure, it'll run just fine, but it's less than optimal. It's great that this engine will run on 87, and of course GM will use this as a selling point; but many members have felt differences with higher octane, and have also gotten better MPGs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming
bottom right hand corner is the "spark retard". With 87 octane you can clearly see the spark retard is very active!
with non-ethanol 93 octane, the spark retard basically stays at ZERO! |
Here is another nice synopsis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger
Oh boy, not this topic again. Here it is in a nutshell...
Car will run fine on 87, but theres proof out there that the car seems to pull more timing with the lower octane fuel.
Using 91 or higher has shown to lessen the amount of timing pulled which should result in the engine running a bit more to its potential. Will you be able to tell the difference? Who knows, some say they think the car sounds smoother or feels more responsive, while some say that while they agree it may be better for the car, its too little to notice. I lean more towards that 2nd camp, and yes I try to run higher than regular graded fuel.
|