87 vers 93 octane fuel - Page 5
NEWS
 

  1. Welcome to Chevy Cruze Forum : Chevrolet Cruze Forums General discussion forum for Chevy Cruze

    Welcome to Chevy Cruze Forum : Chevrolet Cruze Forums - a website dedicated to all things Chevy Cruze.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join Chevy Cruze Forum : Chevrolet Cruze Forums today!
     
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 100
Like Tree34Likes

Thread: 87 vers 93 octane fuel

  1. #41
    Handbrake Released
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by wayztr View Post
    The funny thing is, as much as you guys talk about these "tests", I've yet to see them. Please link me up. For the record, I am (was) a believer in PREMIUM level fuel. I've used it for years and years in everything from my 5.0 Mustangs to my WS-6 Trans Am to my Grand Prix GTP. However, this expose - which I did provide the link for - clearly states - from an independent testers point of view - that anything but 87 is a waste. And, they have the computer driven data to show it.

    Also, where is it written that this particular engine needs to "pull timing" in order to run on 87 octane? In the interview I watched, the industry expert claims that modern ECMs "can" adjust timing if knock is about to occur, but I do believe he was referring to his 300 HP Corvette more than the >150 HP Cruze that the TV show was testing.
    All the F*****g tuners logging knock while driving isn't enough? Christ, I am tired of people like you spreading bullshit around the internet. No **** the car is pulling timing when it knocks, that what a knock sensor is there for! Detects knock and then retards timing.

    Have you also ever though about how engines work? Do you know why higher octane is needed? Do you understand turbo motors? Do you understand compression? Do you understand anything that isn't in a Youtube video?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Chevy Cruze Forum
    Advertisements
     

  3. #42
    Resident Tater Salad

    jblackburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    8,016
    ^this.


    Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App
    2012 Cruze 1LT 6M


  4. #43
    Duke of Oil

    XtremeRevolution's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where the stars and stripes and eagles fly.
    Posts
    12,006
    Quote Originally Posted by wayztr View Post
    The funny thing is, as much as you guys talk about these "tests", I've yet to see them. Please link me up. For the record, I am (was) a believer in PREMIUM level fuel. I've used it for years and years in everything from my 5.0 Mustangs to my WS-6 Trans Am to my Grand Prix GTP. However, this expose - which I did provide the link for - clearly states - from an independent testers point of view - that anything but 87 is a waste. And, they have the computer driven data to show it.

    Also, where is it written that this particular engine needs to "pull timing" in order to run on 87 octane? In the interview I watched, the industry expert claims that modern ECMs "can" adjust timing if knock is about to occur, but I do believe he was referring to his 300 HP Corvette more than the >150 HP Cruze that the TV show was testing.
    I was going to respond immediately after reading this but had to get out of the house to get my snow tires.

    Your article/video proves absolutely nothing except that you don't know how octane, compression, detonation, and KR are related.

    Your Grand Prix GTP required premium octane fuel because despite having an 8.5:1 compression ratio (lower than the 9.5:1 compression on the GT which required 87 octane), the dynamic compression and heat created by the supercharger required a higher octane fuel to keep the motor from blowing pistons and knocking like crazy. I own two of those motors, one of which is heavily modified and tuned.

    Read up on the topics and let me know if you still have questions.

    Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App
    Amsoil Products Info, Ordering, & CruzeTalk.com Discounts


    XtremeRevolution & Co. Mobile Audio Parts :: XtremeRevolution.net



    "When freedom is at odds with government policy, one of two things eventually happens: Either freedom is crushed, or political leaders are forced out in disgrace and replaced with guardians of individual liberty."

    "...the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists independently of the Second Amendment...the Bill of Rights is a reminder to the government, not [an] authorization..."

  5. #44
    Driver's Ed
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Gh0st View Post
    All the F*****g tuners logging knock while driving isn't enough? Christ, I am tired of people like you spreading bullshit around the internet. No **** the car is pulling timing when it knocks, that what a knock sensor is there for! Detects knock and then retards timing.

    Have you also ever though about how engines work? Do you know why higher octane is needed? Do you understand turbo motors? Do you understand compression? Do you understand anything that isn't in a Youtube video?
    If you have ever heard of the devil's advocate argument, friend, then rest assured that your foul language is misguided. I am of the belief that PREMIUM fuel is superior. I have said as much in several posts now, if you go back to re-read them.

    Here's the problem: this documentary, by a publicly funded news organization - not the petrol industry - puts forth a compelling argument. They (not me) show that in an average car such as the Chevrolet Cruze, there is absolutely no benefit to using a premium fuel. They back their claims with scientific tests completed by a third-party testing agent. They speak with a leading expert in the field and he unequivocally states that there is no benefit to using a premium fuel. Did you actually watch the piece, or was it easier just to chime in from the sidelines?

    As the son of an career auto mechanic, I am well aware of octane, compression, turbo, et al. Thus the reason I have always preferred premium over the years; Sunoco Ultra 94 if/when I can get my hands on it. It's just that I'm not going to turn a blind eye to facts when presented in a clear, and logical method, because I have pre-conceived notions of what/why/how fuel works. If you and other members here choose to do so, be my guest. That's kind of the whole point of the CBC Marketplace report. No, it's not just some YouTube video. Look them up. CBC Marketplace is a highly respected program similar to what you in the States would call 60 Minutes or 20/20.

    If you care to actually read some of the corroborating evidence, your own US Federal Trade Commission weighs in on the matter. Following this link you will also note that three of the main companies have "run afoul" of the FTC for misleading ads. Complaints and Advice - Marketplace

    Like I said, as one who wants to continue putting premium fuel in my cars, I would welcome the chance to read something you can link me up to that proves your point. Sadly, making rude comments and questioning a fellow poster's intelligence is not the best way to get a point across in this day and age. Please, prove me wrong with evidence.

    XtremeRev: good call on the snow tires, planning ahead is key. As we had barely an inch or two of snow last winter, I'm thinking I'll be fine (as usual) with regular all-season Michelins. Similar to above, remember this is not my article. This report was conducted by a journalist. I'm just sharing it as a means to encourage further discussion about the topic. As you are the super moderator here, I assume this what you want to have happen. Just because something has "always been" doesn't mean it will "always be". Please do not assume that I do not know how something works just because I am willing to present an alternative viewpoint.

    I do not have further questions because you (and others) do not seem to be able to show me where it is documented online that premium fuel outperforms regular fuel. As pointed out by the CBC journalists, and their expert, the entire debate MAY BE an industry created myth. Have you watched the entire broadcast? Did you see where, on the dyno hooked up to the monitor, the results were presented as they happened - surprising even the technician who was running the test?

    This program was a real eye opener for me. In the past, I have even gone so far as to put premium in my mini-vans every fifth tank or so. I want to believe the claims are true. I want to read something more convincing than a tuner's log book. Point me in the right direction - I will read, return, and recant. Until then, my point (based on the CBC Marketplace findings) stands.
    Last edited by wayztr; 11-13-2012 at 09:39 PM.

  6. #45
    Driver's Ed
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    22
    The Low-Down on High Octane Gasoline

    (excerpt)

    The Low-Down on High Octane Gasoline

    Are you tempted to buy a high octane gasoline for your car because you want to improve its performance? If so, take note: the recommended gasoline for most cars is regular octane. In fact, in most cases, using a higher octane gasoline than your owner's manual recommends offers absolutely no benefit. It won't make your car perform better, go faster, get better mileage or run cleaner. Your best bet: listen to your owner's manual.
    The only time you might need to switch to a higher octane level is if your car engine knocks when you use the recommended fuel. This happens to a small percentage of cars.
    Unless your engine is knocking, buying higher octane gasoline is a waste of money, too. Premium gas costs 15 to 20 cents per gallon more than regular. That can add up to $100 or more a year in extra costs. Studies indicate that altogether, drivers may be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year for higher octane gas than they need.

    The full article can be accessed here:

    The Low-Down on High Octane Gasoline

  7. #46
    Administrator

    obermd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    13,338
    Take a look at 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ: The Ultimate Hot Weather MPG Test - Regular vs. Premium. Edmunds took a 2011 Cruze LTZ and put it to the test using both 87 and 91 octane. What they discoverd was that the car performs enough better on 91 octane that in many cases makes the car actually less expensive to operate on 91 than on 87. Their measurements are pump to pump based, not DIC based. Basically, don't trust just a single source, especially when it comes to how complex systems operate.

    Also, in the middle of your "Low-Down on High Octane Gasoline" is the statement "Unless your engine is knocking, ...". When you feel throttle pulsing in the Cruze, the engine is knocking. It's quite enough that you can't hear it, but the ECU detects it. The throttle pulse is the ECU changing the ignition timing to avoid damaging knock and pinging. When ignition timing is changed like this, the fuel ignition in the cylinders isn't occurring at the optimum positioning and travel direction of at least one of your four pistons, lowering engine efficiency and mpg. Basically the Cruze's ECU is programmed to protect the engine, not ensure the most efficient fuel combustion. Higher octane is more resistent to premature detonation, allowing the ECU to fire the sparks closer to the optimum point in the piston's motion.
    Last edited by obermd; 11-13-2012 at 09:57 PM. Reason: corrected a typo

    2012 ECO MT - Black Granite/Cloth; 814 mile range; Bluetooth Stereo AUX; OEM Fogs w/Chrome Covers; GM Spare tire; VG Shark Fin
    2010 Mit Lancer GT MT (traded for ECO @31K miles)
    2002 Pont Montana AWD (traded for 2012 LS @182K miles)
    1990 Pont Transport (traded for Montana @240K miles)
    1986 Fiero GT MT (traded for Transport)
    1985 Fiero 2M4 MT (traded for Fiero GT @8K miles)

  8. #47
    Driver's Ed
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    22
    Thank you, I will in a moment here. Of course, any single source is not enough. Hence my additional reference to the FTC protecting America's consumers web page.

    FWIW, it also states this knocking only ever occurs in a small percentage of cars.

  9. #48
    Administrator

    obermd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    13,338
    Knocking occurs in a much larger percentage of cars than anyone wants to admit. It has been a problem since the days of the Model A and T. Fortunately for us, most cars today are able to detect and compensate by altering the ignition timing so it's not as noticable. If you take a look at a lot of older cars you'll see that it's only been since the widespread use of computerized fuel injection that lower octane fuels have become commonly usable by cars.

    By the way, I spent 22 years driving Pontiac minivans - neither required or needed anything over 87 (sea level) or 85 (Denver and higher). Both my Cruzen run better (mpg) with higher octane.

    2012 ECO MT - Black Granite/Cloth; 814 mile range; Bluetooth Stereo AUX; OEM Fogs w/Chrome Covers; GM Spare tire; VG Shark Fin
    2010 Mit Lancer GT MT (traded for ECO @31K miles)
    2002 Pont Montana AWD (traded for 2012 LS @182K miles)
    1990 Pont Transport (traded for Montana @240K miles)
    1986 Fiero GT MT (traded for Transport)
    1985 Fiero 2M4 MT (traded for Fiero GT @8K miles)

  10. #49
    Administrator

    obermd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    13,338
    I just read the FTC article at the link you provided. In it the FTC flat out says that if you hear knocking to try the next level of octane up. In the case of the Cruze, the ECU "hears" it before you do and you feel the results in the throttle. Your foot "hears" the knocking as pulses in the throttle. Boost your octane one level. This is the same advice I've been handing out on Cruzetalk since early this past summer.
    XtremeRevolution likes this.

    2012 ECO MT - Black Granite/Cloth; 814 mile range; Bluetooth Stereo AUX; OEM Fogs w/Chrome Covers; GM Spare tire; VG Shark Fin
    2010 Mit Lancer GT MT (traded for ECO @31K miles)
    2002 Pont Montana AWD (traded for 2012 LS @182K miles)
    1990 Pont Transport (traded for Montana @240K miles)
    1986 Fiero GT MT (traded for Transport)
    1985 Fiero 2M4 MT (traded for Fiero GT @8K miles)

  11. #50
    Duke of Oil

    XtremeRevolution's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where the stars and stripes and eagles fly.
    Posts
    12,006
    I will respond in red, so it would be easy to see

    Quote Originally Posted by wayztr View Post
    If you have ever heard of the devil's advocate argument, friend, then rest assured that your foul language is misguided. I am of the belief that PREMIUM fuel is superior. I have said as much in several posts now, if you go back to re-read them.

    That's not the issue here. The issue here is that you are spreading misinformation without knowing it. The material in your original post is severely flawed. I'll explain.

    Here's the problem: this documentary, by a publicly funded news organization - not the petrol industry - puts forth a compelling argument. They (not me) show that in an average car such as the Chevrolet Cruze, there is absolutely no benefit to using a premium fuel. They back their claims with scientific tests completed by a third-party testing agent. They speak with a leading expert in the field and he unequivocally states that there is no benefit to using a premium fuel. Did you actually watch the piece, or was it easier just to chime in from the sidelines?

    The problem with the documentary is that the Chevrolet Cruze is not an average car. How many economy cars are out there that have a turbo strapped to them (excluding sport models like the Cobalt SS or the Neon SRT-4)? Very few, and for a reason. I didn't watch the piece because I could teach the people who made it a thing or two about fuel and detonation. The issue here is of dynamic compression. The Cruze has a dynamic compression MUCH higher than its static compression once boost starts to kick in. If I remember correctly, the turbo on the Cruze produces up to 16psi of boost; which consequentially produces significant amounts of heat. The only reason why the Cruze can run on 87 octane is because the computer is fast enough and intelligent enough to retard spark timing the moment it senses even a smidgin of detonation. The problem with this is that your car is constantly retarding timing, and therefore losing efficiency.

    As the son of an career auto mechanic, I am well aware of octane, compression, turbo, et al. Thus the reason I have always preferred premium over the years; Sunoco Ultra 94 if/when I can get my hands on it. It's just that I'm not going to turn a blind eye to facts when presented in a clear, and logical method, because I have pre-conceived notions of what/why/how fuel works. If you and other members here choose to do so, be my guest. That's kind of the whole point of the CBC Marketplace report. No, it's not just some YouTube video. Look them up. CBC Marketplace is a highly respected program similar to what you in the States would call 60 Minutes or 20/20.

    This may be nit-picking, but always be critical of your sources when the topic is controversial. Do you think CBC Marketplace is an authority on all automotive topics? I'd wager that it isn't. Who exactly do you think the program was targeted toward?


    If you care to actually read some of the corroborating evidence, your own US Federal Trade Commission weighs in on the matter. Following this link you will also note that three of the main companies have "run afoul" of the FTC for misleading ads. Complaints and Advice - Marketplace

    Like I said, as one who wants to continue putting premium fuel in my cars, I would welcome the chance to read something you can link me up to that proves your point. Sadly, making rude comments and questioning a fellow poster's intelligence is not the best way to get a point across in this day and age. Please, prove me wrong with evidence.

    XtremeRev: good call on the snow tires, planning ahead is key. As we had barely an inch or two of snow last winter, I'm thinking I'll be fine (as usual) with regular all-season Michelins. Similar to above, remember this is not my article. This report was conducted by a journalist. I'm just sharing it as a means to encourage further discussion about the topic. As you are the super moderator here, I assume this what you want to have happen. Just because something has "always been" doesn't mean it will "always be". Please do not assume that I do not know how something works just because I am willing to present an alternative viewpoint.

    The region north of Chicago got a dusting of snow very recently. The news can't stop talking about how many accidents resulted in that snow. Last winter was especially mild. I don't expect this winter to be the same. All it takes is half an inch of snow to ruin your day. I suppose you could more accurately call them winter tires.

    As for the rest of this paragraph, I mentioned before and I'll say it again; this horse has been beaten to death on this board repeatedly. The arguments for and against have been made, and there really isn't a question about what the truth is. A month or two from now, someone else will, just as you have, come here and start this same discussion again, and it will end exactly the same way. I do want to encourage discussion, but not when I and this entire board have already discussed it until we were blue in the face. I don't assume you don't know how something works because you want to present an alternative viewpoint; I assume you don't know how it works because if you did, you wouldn't have taken the time to argue in favor of that viewpoint.


    I do not have further questions because you (and others) do not seem to be able to show me where it is documented online that premium fuel outperforms regular fuel. As pointed out by the CBC journalists, and their expert, the entire debate MAY BE an industry created myth. Have you watched the entire broadcast? Did you see where, on the dyno hooked up to the monitor, the results were presented as they happened - surprising even the technician who was running the test?

    Consider the position in which you've put us. Among automotive experts, this is a no-brainier. This is such an obvious topic that thorough testing and analysis is not even needed. Those of us who have a Torque application on their phones and a Bluetooth OBD2 adapter have scanned their cars while driving and noticed significant amounts of knock retard with lower octane fuels under normal driving conditions and temperatures, and astronomic levels of KR in very high temperatures with a heat soaked engine bay and intercooler. If a claim that higher octane fuel is needed was made and no discernible difference could be felt or recorded during the use of that higher octane fuel by the vast majority of us, then additional information and proof could be demanded to support that claim, but it's simply so obvious and so clear, that nobody wants to waste their time to prove something they already to know just so a critical skeptic could be convinced.

    Again, those CBC journalists were correct; but only in cases involving engines that were specifically created with a low static and dynamic compression that had no chance of detonation. The 1.4L Turbo engine in the Cruze is not such an engine, and the high dynamic compression of this motor allows it to benefit from a higher octane fuel. I have personally scanned my car with Torque and saw the KR for myself after I had already felt the difference.

    I decided to watch the video anyway, and here's what I saw. They started with a dyno test and recorded the amount of power. A few things to note:

    1. The temperature in the shop was manageable, not hot.
    2. They were cruising, not accelerating. In otherwords, the engine load was very small. If you've done your research, you'll know that knock only occurs at higher loads, NOT extremely light, cruising loads.

    If they wanted to actually validate their tests, they would have taken it to a 1/2 mile track and tested the performance of the car with both regular and premium fuel. In addition, they would have performed their fuel economy testing with heavy city driving, where the difference is the greatest.

    The crucial error they made in that video is that they did not test for knock, fuel efficiency, or power during the conditions where the car is the most sensitive to different fuel grades. Under their conditions, even cars that are designed to run on premium octane fuel would have brought back the same results.


    This program was a real eye opener for me. In the past, I have even gone so far as to put premium in my mini-vans every fifth tank or so. I want to believe the claims are true. I want to read something more convincing than a tuner's log book. Point me in the right direction - I will read, return, and recant. Until then, my point (based on the CBC Marketplace findings) stands.
    You bring me back to my previous point; do you understand knock, do you understand spark timing/advance/retard, do you understand when those events occur, why they occur, and how to prevent them? By filling a N/A minivan with premium fuel, you admit that, at least at the time, you did not understand these concepts. Do you understand the fact that higher octane fuel reduces the likelihood of knock under high compression motors, and the fact that the Cruze 1.4L Turbo is a high compression motor? Just because it can run on 87 octane because the computer is intelligent enough to pull timing to prevent that knock, doesn't mean it runs well on 87 octane. In cruising conditions on a perfectly flat road with absolutely minimal engine load and no aerodynamic drag (which was what they tested on the dyno), the motor's compression will never be high enough, no matter what car you use or what it recommends (be it regular or premium), to show knock with 87 octane fuel.

    I certainly will not pump 87 octane back into my car and live with a shitty driving vehicle for 400 or so miles just to prove a point, but others have already attempted this and will be more than happy to chime in, supporting everything I've already said.

    Here's one unscientific example if you must have one:
    2011 Chevrolet Cruze: Hot Weather MPG Part 2
    Amsoil Products Info, Ordering, & CruzeTalk.com Discounts


    XtremeRevolution & Co. Mobile Audio Parts :: XtremeRevolution.net



    "When freedom is at odds with government policy, one of two things eventually happens: Either freedom is crushed, or political leaders are forced out in disgrace and replaced with guardians of individual liberty."

    "...the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists independently of the Second Amendment...the Bill of Rights is a reminder to the government, not [an] authorization..."

  12. Remove Advertisements
    Chevy Cruze Forum
    Advertisements
     

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 87 vs 91 octane
    By TGreyCruze in forum Powertrain
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-06-2013, 12:20 PM
  2. GM confirms use of 91 Octane Fuel
    By Quazar in forum 1.4L Turbo
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 01:05 AM
  3. Cost Benefit Analysis of 87 octane vs 89 octane fuel
    By WHITECO in forum Fuel Economy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 11:21 AM
  4. Heat Soak and 93 Octane Fuel
    By Farmer Fran in forum Powertrain
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-07-2011, 07:17 PM
  5. Truth about fuel additives aka octane boosters
    By Tom_Cruze in forum Off Topic Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 06:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2