100 Octane

[jeff4946]

Originally Posted by brantley847

I have never heard anything about V6 tunes or their results, I never mentioned anything about tunes. I figured were speaking specifically in reference to STOCK V6 vehicles and their difference between higher grade comparision for 87 and 93. I assumed that was only way to make a fair comparision for the OP.

What I mentioned was, we don't know which vehicles have been tuned or which vehicles have been modified when other members continue to reference dyno results etc...

Ya , sorry , wasn't very specific.... you stated how you doubted GM would put out a car, saying that 87 was the octane to run, and not suggesting it would run better with 91, or something to that effect. I was just replying ,very poorly I might ad, that if that was the case, they would build a tune for the v6, without all the fight.

[Bowtiepower00]

The regular vs. premium debate has been discussed at length in many threads in the V6 section.

Regardless of what GM's official word is with regard to the LLT, it does pull timing on 87 octane and WILL run better with higher octane fuel. Multiple V6 owners have dynoed with 87 and again with 91/93 and have posted their (improved) results. Scrming's dashhawk video also shows proof of timing being pulled on 87 octane fuel. Many V6 owners have also noticed an increase of 1+ MPG on premium fuel.

Here is an interesting post regarding 100 octane and the LLT (disclaimer, I have not seen any 100 octane dyno sheets to prove this, so take it for what you will...)

Reference post #61 here: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86794&highlight=100+octane&page=3

Quote:

During the Hot Rod Power Tour I discussed what I had learned from the two dyno runs with a person walking into the Mid America Motorsports facility as follows:

1. Hytech Motorsports DynaJet Dyno 241 HP 224 TQ regular gas 87 octane

2. St. Paul Automotive Mustang Dyno 264 HP 222 TQ preimum gas 92 octane

The person then identified himself as an engineer from GM Performance Division and the results are exactly what we should expect from the 217 CI 3.6L V6.

He then stated with 100 octane gas the engine can produce ~300 HP at the rear wheels or 371-375 HP at the driveshaft. WOW! Why buy a V8?

If you use a higher octance fuel and drive the engine hard you will see more horsepower out of the new 3.6 L.

[E.T.]

Originally Posted by DarkObsession

Unfortunately, I can't really see anything in that video so it's impossible to tell what we are looking at and what the numbers are.

KR is only going to show up at WOT; if it shows up while you are idling or under mild acceleration, then you have bigger problems than what octane of fuel to use.

Generally speaking, timing is only useful information at WOT as well if you are talking about how much power you are making. What I'd like to see is the following:

V6 - bone stock. Scan at WOT with 87 octane and show spark advance (timing) and KR (spark retard).

That would probably be sufficient to see what exactly is being hurt/helped with 87 octane but then of course it would be nice to see what the car does with 93. That said, if the first scan shows timing ~15-18 and 0 KR, I doubt that 93 octane would make any difference.

My personal opinion is that by running higher octane in a V6, you are flushing twenties down the toilet as someone else said but I don't have any data to back that up.

Unfortunately, I don't have data. Maybe someone else does. The post below pretty much sums up what is happening.

Originally Posted by mpiper

Jeff,
I also work for an oil refining company, so your earlier points are dead on, no arguements on anything about fuels. But you're using old school carberator logic on a direct injection, highly ECU-managed engine. I've gotten slammed by that myself several times since I got the Camaro. Last Hot Rod I had was a 79 v8 with NO computer controlls whatsoever. I'm still trying to get out of my late 80's performance mindset and get used to the new world of computer controlled engines.


However; The 3.6 has a knock sensor. The engine ACTIVELY trys to add timing to max mileage/power. Once the sensor detects a knock situation, it backs off the timing for that RPM. Therefore, it adds timing to ANY octane rating. 91 allows more timing, 93 even more. Is there a max? Possibly. I don't know. Here is what I DO know:

With 87 Octane, running a data log shows timing starting at 11 and going all the way to 40 and dropping down to 20 and up again. it is the most uneven, ugly graph you've even seen. running 89, the drops were fewer and farther between, but still occured. Running 93 I had the timing start at 11, run up to 40, drop to around 36 and stay there, no further drops, except when RPM range shifted. I tested 91 later, when weather was much warmer. Seemed pretty much like 93, only was around 34 that the timing hung instead of 36. No idea if the difference was the temperatures, the octane, or both.

So, yes, I've tested the "myth" of 87 being the best gas. It's "Busted." 87 is 100% SAFE and effective with the advanced fuel/timing management this Bosch ECU has. But it is NOT the best. Based on my tests, anything 91 or better should see a smooth, consistent timing curve that follows engine RPM just like it should. For best budget, run 87, for best Mileage/Power run 91+

As for flushing 20's away, well, it costs an extra 4 bucks or so a fill-up to go with 93. I'm not too concerned, and I'd rather have my car running better/happier.

The OP was asking about 100 octane. Now in that case, I think it would probably be a waste to run that all time.

Anyway, to each their own, but many of the other V6-ers on here seem very knowledgeable about this, so I trust their advice and results. Until someone can prove there is no benefit to running 93, that's what's going in my tank

[brantley847]

Originally Posted by jeff4946

Ya , sorry , wasn't very specific.... you stated how you doubted GM would put out a car, saying that 87 was the octane to run, and not suggesting it would run better with 91, or something to that effect. I was just replying ,very poorly I might ad, that if that was the case, they would build a tune for the v6, without all the fight.

oh ok..

Yea, I don't doubt that 93 is more efficient or some people say "healthy" for your vehicle...it just seems some people (mostly from my experience with previous posts about this topic) seem to believe they get noticable gains. I think the car would run smoother, but I don't believe it is something we are going to see on a dyno...im not a guru on the topic by any means. I just felt GM made a good product, and why not just be honest and say "hey, your car can run on 87, but will be more efficient with 91+".

I don't think there is proof either way. I put 93 in mine at a recommended 91. Am I wasting money? Maybe...if there is any chance that using a higher grade could length the life of my vehicle then yes, I am going to take any chance I can...I may be an idiot for thinking that. My only debate is the gains..that is all.

[fielderLS3]

If it is a stock tune, just run 87. Even if it does pull a slight bit of timing, you probably won't be able to notice the slight different on premium, and if you cared that much about a few horsepower, you would have gotten the V8 anyway. As for 100 octane, that is just a waste. All you'll notice with that is harder starting and that you don't seem to have as much money as you used to.

For the people who claim a mileage increase using premium, keep in mind that in many places, only regular and mid-grade have 10% ethanol added, with premium sometimes being pure gas.

[KMPrenger]

Ugh....my head hits the desk everytime I see a new thread about octane ratings for a V6. Please make it stop! lol

There ARE dyno sheets, there ARE different graphs and videos showing amounts of timing being pulled (always less with 91 vs 87), and we have explained how the Bosch ECM seems to just add timing until knocking is detected.

But in every thread there are comments like these to be found:

Originally Posted by Russell James

Go into your bathroom and start flushing $20s.

Same end result.

The LLT is calibrated for 87.

Manual says 87 or better.

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.

Oh God thats hilarious....actually I'd like you to provide to me the proof you have found that running a higher octane DOESN'T help at all? We have provided evidence that it does. You just haven't seen it, so stop assuming. So until you go get a V6 and run dyno tests and monitor your AFR and show us proof that 93 does nothing at all....I'll stick with what we've seen.

I'm not saying the difference is big...of course it isn't. Some say they think the car runs smoother, some say they think it runs strong, and some say they can't tell a difference at all.

Thats all fine and dandy. Go do the research and then make up your own mind.

Peace.

[Black5thgen]

To throw my hat in the ring. I only use 100 octane in my 3800 monte carlo at the track when spraying it. Otherwise the nitrous will cause detonation and the knock retard will kick in and cut power back.

[PoorMansCamaro]

100octane will do no good without a tune for that octane.

As for the premium vs regular, do your research, as KMPrenger has suggested. Premium > regular when it comes to the v6 camaro.

[brantley847]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Oh God thats hilarious....actually I'd like you to provide to me the proof you have found that running a higher octane DOESN'T help at all? We have provided evidence that it does. You just haven't seen it, so stop assuming. So until you go get a V6 and run dyno tests and monitor your AFR and show us proof that 93 does nothing at all....I'll stick with what we've seen.

I'm not saying the difference is big...of course it isn't. Some say they think the car runs smoother, some say they think it runs strong, and some say they can't tell a difference at all.

Thats all fine and dandy. Go do the research and then make up your own mind.

Peace.

I have all the proof I need in the litter...literally...boom

I am just messing around with you guys, I put 93 when 91 is recommended as well for mine..so I have no room to talk. I just would like to see the dynos, for personal knowledge as well. Everyone on here says they exist, but they don't seem to exist to proof either sides point. Even you just stated "we have provided evidence"...and that is what? Mystery dynos and hand helds plugged into vehicles which are not running WOT? I already said it is more efficient, but what did the OP say....boost? hp increase? Come on...

No, I do not have the desire to debate this in depth or any further ..nor do I care to find a dyno when I don't have that model. If you find one, cool. I hope it proves everyone wrong because then it justifies my own method of purchasing 93. If not..oh well, I am moving on. Last word is yours..