Gas for v6?

[homewrecker]

Can't go wrong with premium

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

[ChibiBlackSheep]

Originally Posted by stevey_frac

This is with a full tank of 94 octane. Not sure if the results would have been the same with 91.

Most likely the results would be very similar. I don't think it's commanding that much more than 91 can deliver. Either way should have much more advance than 87

[stevey_frac]

I tend to agree. I just used 94 octane to fully dilute all the 87 left in the tank.

I'll use 91 next tank and compare, then 89. See where the breakdown happens.

Sent from my XT925 using Tapatalk

[AKA-22]

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...11#post7702611

[KaBoom1701]

Originally Posted by Mnelson

Those of that understand the difference between 87 and 93 and The difference between advanced timing and RETARDED timing will continue to run quality gas in out engines. Those who only know what their salesman told them will continue to run 87 from WalMart.

+1

[AKA-22]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Sorry I asked a question to confirm you had those parts on your car. I'd bet that the vast majority of the people here consider those performance parts as I do.
OK, you don't. Duly noted.

[AKA-22]

Originally Posted by MagnumForceGB

Jesus Christ...

Why does everybody think that 91/93 octane burns slower or has less energy than 87?

Read this:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/Issue...ineBasics.html

[AKA-22]

Originally Posted by MBS

Love this thread , full of guys who know their stuff to guys to those who dont know jackshit and just spit out whatever their brains tell them to with no ideal of what they are talking about .
I always run 91 No Ethanol top tier gas only,, well almost always always ,the wife this week had the car and decided to fill it up with crap 87 corn meal garbage gas, Oh the pain ,I cant wait to get that crap out of the tank. and with the 5hp gain I will take it , might be the difference of winning or losing , and I do not support corn industry and this joke of Ethanol .

Wow is this not the truth about alot of post on this site!!!!!!!

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by stevey_frac

No fuse pull required. It had pretty much done adjusting by the end of my morning commute, about 30 km.

There does seem to be more pull in the mid range with bigger octane, which makes me want to see if my 0-60 is any faster. I suspect all the magazine tests would have used 87 octane.

Sent from my XT925 using Tapatalk

That's good info., thanks.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Xmitterengineer

Those timing tables confirm my observations:

With 87 in the tank I see much more knock retard on throttle tip in and in the mid RPM range with the scan tool.

In the seat this feels as if the engine is sluggish to respond to sudden applications of throttle when compared to 93.

With 93 in the tank the engine just feels more responsive.

It's worth the extra coin to me!!

I invite anyone to prove wrong the assertion that 93 will give more power in the mid-range and lower RPM's, and that 93 will produce more efficiency (MPG).

Of course you will have to compare apples to apples regarding ethanol content.

For those who do not want maximum performance from their LFX; 87 is the MINIMUM OCTANE you can run without risk of DAMAGING the engine!!!

Good day.

I agree...

[Bk7]

Honestly, I feel no difference between the two.

[jd10013]

Originally Posted by Bk7

Honestly, I feel no difference between the two.

in normal driving you probably wont. but if you drive it hard, or are on a track where tenths of a second matter then you would.