Let me copy something from my build sheet.
KRD - FUEL RATING OCTANE NO. 91
Sent from my iFail 5s
KRD - FUEL RATING OCTANE NO. 91
Sent from my iFail 5s
93 Octane? The debate continues...
I have been reading all of the internet, mostly on this forum, over the debate of filling up the Cruze with the highest octane fuel. I have had my 2012 Cruze LS 1.8L since December of 2011. Until the last two times I have filled up(past 3 years), I have used regular gasoline. But recently, I was told I need a fuel injection cleaning and told that if I simply put in a bottle of fuel cleaner as well as use Shell V-Power, that would do the trick.
I did do that and the two times I have done it, I have noticed much better performance out of my car. Not only better performance, but better millage too. I did read in the Cruze manual and it states about using at least regular unleaded fuel (87 Octane level). But the manual states you can use higher octane if you wish.
Everyone I have spoke to about this thinks, "it's a bad idea", "it's not good for your engine". Both people who know cars and others that have just had more experience with cars.
I don't see what can be the downside to using higher octane gas in the Cruze.
What are your thoughts? I am stuck with what to believe.
I did do that and the two times I have done it, I have noticed much better performance out of my car. Not only better performance, but better millage too. I did read in the Cruze manual and it states about using at least regular unleaded fuel (87 Octane level). But the manual states you can use higher octane if you wish.
Everyone I have spoke to about this thinks, "it's a bad idea", "it's not good for your engine". Both people who know cars and others that have just had more experience with cars.
I don't see what can be the downside to using higher octane gas in the Cruze.
What are your thoughts? I am stuck with what to believe.
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel. Octane is merely a measure of a fuel's resistance to autoignite (i.e. knock). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content and will not provide more MPG in and by itself.
Until I added this 1.4T to the fleet, you and I sung from the same book.Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel. Octane is merely a measure of a fuel's resistance to autoignite (i.e. knock). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content and will not provide more MPG in and by itself.
But, we all have found that this engine has a strong tendency to pull timing the moment it hears any semblance of knock/ping/pre-ignition, whatever term you like.
With that timing pull comes a looooooong flat spot on throttle reapply, say after making a turn.....and to clarify, I'm 64 and my car flogging has become almost non existant (not to be confused with dead).
However, we (I) also have found this computer has a LOT of advance available and, as a result, in particular ambient temperatures above 60f, it will have rather favorable results using 93.
The 'bog' or flat spot mentioned earlier virtually disappears and, in my case anyways, the mileage improves by almost 4 mpg around town, offsetting the additional cost.
I might add, the around town mileage improves the most and I'm likely in the 90% around town range.
In my case, the highway mileage improves as well, but not enough to offset the cost.....a bit over 1 mpg.
Regardless of mileage, and the car gets great mileage regardless of fuel......I rate it great or on 93, greater yet, I prefer the warm weather driveability improvement that 93 provides....in particular with the A/C operating.
In your case, all I can say is try a couple tankfuls and see what happens.....a very inexpensive experiment at that.
Rob
Yes octane is resistance to knock, but the 1.4T is constantly hitting the knock sensor when above 80F outside when running regular 87 octane gas. More than one user has reported a 2-4mpg increase in summer weather running premium. My cost per mile is lower with premium than regular in these conditions.Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel. Octane is merely a measure of a fuel's resistance to autoignite (i.e. knock). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content and will not provide more MPG in and by itself.
The cruze can run more advanced timing curve with premium gas making more power by not constantly having to detune itself if it senses knock.
The Ultimate Hot Weather MPG Test - Regular vs. Premium - 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ Long-Term Road Test
And it begins again...Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel. Octane is merely a measure of a fuel's resistance to autoignite (i.e. knock). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content and will not provide more MPG in and by itself.
Yes, you are correct that octane is a measure of resistance to premature detonation. However, the Cruze's engines (definitely the 1.4T and very likely the 1.8) were designed for 91 octane. GM's marketing department realized that as an economy car the Cruze wouldn't sell in the US if it required premium gas. So GM's engineers designed and implemented a system to monitor the engine for predetonation and pull the ignition timing to protect the engine from knock when driving on regular (87 octane) gasoline. There are two ignition maps in the ECU, one designed for premium and one for regular. This works, but anytime the engine is under load the ECU will pull timing to protect the engine from knock. It does so very well but at the expense of optimal ignition timing for fuel burn. You feel this as a pulsing in the throttle.
The side effect of pulling the ignition timing to protect the engine from knock is a noticeable reduction in power and fuel economy. Using a higher octane fuel eliminates the need for the ignition timing adjustments with the attendant reduction in power and fuel economy. The real question that each driver needs to answer for themselves is "Is the additional price at the pump more than made up for by increased fuel economy and drivability?" For a long term/distance driving review of the Chevy Cruze running regular vs. premium take a look at The Ultimate Hot Weather MPG Test - Regular vs. Premium - 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ Long-Term Road Test.
Until I added this 1.4T to the fleet, you and I sung from the same book ...
Thanks for the replies, guys. But, did you read my post? After getting this rep statement, I think not:Yes octane is resistance to knock, but the 1.4T is constantly hitting the knock sensor when above 80F outside when running regular 87 octane gas ...
"You have no idea what you are talking about. In this application, it makes a difference. Do your research before you post."
My post said absolutely nothing about ignition timing. If 91 RON indeed does produce better MPG than 87 RON, then certainly ignition timing might explain it. But, please read my post again before whoever you are send me such nonsense rep lines. And, as background, I started as a mechanical engineer working for Ethyl Corp (experts in spark knock) at their research facility in Ferndale, Michigan, and there is no power to be had from octane in and by itself. Ethyl's R&D facility is long gone now, but octane still by itself does not produce more power.
Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel. Octane is merely a measure of a fuel's resistance to autoignite (i.e. knock). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content and will not provide more MPG in and by itself.
This bold blanket statement doesn't apply to the cruze yet you come back to cherry pick the one part of your post that is a true statement as a argument point? Basically that logic is like saying gasoline wont provide MPG in and by itself. As far I I know no one in this thread ever mentioned more energy content in premium before you did. Technically though most of the premium in my state does have more energy, as most here is 91 octane no ethanol vs up to 10% ethanol for lesser grades.Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel. Octane is merely a measure of a fuel's resistance to autoignite (i.e. knock). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content and will not provide more MPG in and by itself.
The engine being the key factor, and the engines ability to utilize the knock sensor and adjust timing accordingly. The cruze 1.4T is not the only modern engine to to this, ford even lists power output of their ecoboost engines on regular and premium. Sure octane is not a measurement of energy content, but an engines ability to utilize that octane sure does matter.
Don't make the mistake of ignoring one critical part of every debate on CruzeTalk: Context.Thanks for the replies, guys. But, did you read my post? After getting this rep statement, I think not:
"You have no idea what you are talking about. In this application, it makes a difference. Do your research before you post."
My post said absolutely nothing about ignition timing. If 91 RON indeed does produce better MPG than 87 RON, then certainly ignition timing might explain it. But, please read my post again before whoever you are send me such nonsense rep lines. And, as background, I started as a mechanical engineer working for Ethyl Corp (experts in spark knock) at their research facility in Ferndale, Michigan, and there is no power to be had from octane in and by itself. Ethyl's R&D facility is long gone now, but octane still by itself does not produce more power.
We rarely sit and debate about what fuel should be used in a Mazda Miata. If we are talking about octane levels, it will be relevant to the Cruze unless it is in the off-topic or other owner vehicles section.
Relevant to the Cruze, you stated, and I quote as Spacedout did:
The above, relative to the Cruze 1.8L and 1.4L Turbo, is bad advice.Unless specifically called out for your car, don't waste your money on higher octane fuel.
The funny part is the post is just below my post.Don't make the mistake of ignoring one critical part of every debate on CruzeTalk: Context.
We rarely sit and debate about what fuel should be used in a Mazda Miata. If we are talking about octane levels, it will be relevant to the Cruze unless it is in the off-topic or other owner vehicles section.
Relevant to the Cruze, you stated, and I quote as Spacedout did:
The above, relative to the Cruze 1.8L and 1.4L Turbo, is bad advice.
Yeah baby SHELL VPOWER for the win. Every time I fill up with 89 or lower idle is off , and performance drops Id say. With 93 or greater, I've noticed better idling and smoother shifts.....weird I know.
You mean the one showing the RPO code for 91 octane.The funny part is the post is just below my post.
Hah, I see what you did thereThe funny part is the post is just below my post.
A great deal of Cadilacs say 91 is preferred but 87 is safe(not counting V cars and 2.0t that clearly states the use of premium only) trying to remember if most of those vehicles were flex fuel or not.This bold blanket statement doesn't apply to the cruze yet you come back to cherry pick the one part of your post that is a true statement as a argument point? Basically that logic is like saying gasoline wont provide MPG in and by itself. As far I I know no one in this thread ever mentioned more energy content in premium before you did. Technically though most of the premium in my state does have more energy, as most here is 91 octane no ethanol vs up to 10% ethanol for lesser grades.
The engine being the key factor, and the engines ability to utilize the knock sensor and adjust timing accordingly. The cruze 1.4T is not the only modern engine to to this, ford even lists power output of their ecoboost engines on regular and premium. Sure octane is not a measurement of energy content, but an engines ability to utilize that octane sure does matter.
Yes, I read your post. However, unless you understand how the Cruze's ECU manages the fuel ignition there is no way to understand why the Cruze can safely run on 87 octane despite the engine being designed for and carries the RPO code for 91 octane. There are two ways to reduce/prevent knock (premature fuel detonation) - one is to run higher octane - the other is to change the timing of the spark in the cylinders to prevent excess fuel from accumulating. GM's engineers appear to have detuned our engines in addition to adding serious knock sensors to give the ECU immediate feedback so it can protect the engine from too low of octane.Thanks for the replies, guys. But, did you read my post? After getting this rep statement, I think not:
"You have no idea what you are talking about. In this application, it makes a difference. Do your research before you post."
My post said absolutely nothing about ignition timing. If 91 RON indeed does produce better MPG than 87 RON, then certainly ignition timing might explain it. But, please read my post again before whoever you are send me such nonsense rep lines. And, as background, I started as a mechanical engineer working for Ethyl Corp (experts in spark knock) at their research facility in Ferndale, Michigan, and there is no power to be had from octane in and by itself. Ethyl's R&D facility is long gone now, but octane still by itself does not produce more power.
As with all newer cars there is a lot more engineering in the Cruze than just mechanical. The last estimate I saw was that the average new car has nearly 10 million lines of computer code.
Just as an FYI, the Cruze will run on 85 octane here in Denver but it really stutters at the throttle and has zero passing power. This is exactly what the ECU is programmed to do to protect the car from knock.
So you are saying 89 doesn't even make the grade? I found 91 overkill and at 40 cents a gallon extra. 89 is 20 cents extra and works just fine? Perhaps the key is to have a new engine like mine with 3K before the system gets gunked up, like every computer I have owned? I don't trust Shell after what they did to Florida and Canada about 10 years ago. Interesting GM twist too?Yeah baby SHELL VPOWER for the win. Every time I fill up with 89 or lower idle is off , and performance drops Id say. With 93 or greater, I've noticed better idling and smoother shifts.....weird I know.
[h=2]Toronto Star: Shell shells out for tainted gas: Canadians denied help for problem[/h]TONY VAN ALPHEN
BUSINESS REPORTER
Jun. 4, 2004.
Sulphur harms gas gauges in Florida
Oil giant Shell is reimbursing motorists in Florida for fuel gauge repairs made necessary by contaminated gasoline, something its Canadian subsidiary wouldn’t do here last year.
An official for Shell Oil’s refiner in the United States has confirmed it will start sending cheques today to customers who complained about faulty gauges after buying gas containing corrosive elemental sulphur from the company and Texaco.
Johan Zaayman, a spokesperson for refiner Motiva Enterprises, said yesterday Shell has received more than 9,000 claims for the cost of repairs in less than a week from customers in Florida and nearby states after the company acknowledged a problem.
“We’re accepting claims from customers to get reimbursed for the cost of the repairs of the gas gauges,” Zaayman said in a telephone interview from Motiva’s offices in Houston.
“The cheques will begin to go out tomorrow (Friday),” Zaayman said.
In the last week, hundreds of Shell, Chevron and Texaco service stations have sold gas with traces of elemental sulphur, which quickly corrodes the contacts on sending units in tanks and, in turn, triggers faulty gauge readings.
Motorists have run out of gas and stalled when fuel gauges read full but tanks were actually empty.
Like Shell, Chevron says it has set up a special customer hotline and will cover the cost of repairs. Costs could range from $300 to $600 (U.S.), dealers say.
The reaction by Shell in the United States differs from how the company handled customers in the Toronto region last spring and summer.
A Shell official in Canada said yesterday the company handled customers appropriately here by sending them to their dealers for reimbursement of expenses.
“When we learned of the problem, we co-operated with our mutual partners (the auto industry) to understand it,” said Simone Marler, manager of public affairs for Shell Canada Products.
“We then added an ingredient to our gasoline. We directed our customers to their dealers for assistance. Our goal was to make sure our mutual customers were looked after. And they were. The issue has been resolved.”
Marler said she was unaware of the circumstances in the U.S. incident.
Unsuspecting motorists bought gas tainted with elemental sulphur at Toronto-area Shell and Petro-Canada service stations in the spring and summer of 2003. They got inaccurate gauge readings and stalling, a safety hazard on busy roads.
After a lengthy investigation, Shell and Petro-Canada concluded months later their gas contained elemental sulphur.
The two oil companies denied responsibility for the faulty fuel gauges. They stressed their products exceeded industry and government standards.
At one point, a Petro-Canada official said General Motors was responsible because it used an inferior part, but later the oil company said it wasn’t sure what the problem was.
Shell sent customers back to their dealers, primarily GM, for reimbursement of repairs. But many customers expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment by dealers and GM’s refusal to pay for repairs.
A Star investigation showed that GM had encountered the problem in 2000 in parts of Canada and the United States.
GM sent a notice to customers warning them about the problem and corrective action but it did not issue a recall.
It redesigned the fuel sensors so they could tolerate elemental sulphur. However, the company only started using the new sensors in models last year. GM confirmed it accelerated the installation of the redesigned part in more models late last year.
The investigation found GM notified dealers on how to handle customers in last year’s incident, but the company never warned customers.
Earlier this year, GM offered a free oil change and a Petro-Canada cash card worth a total of about $55 to customers who had gauge problems.
In Tampa yesterday, Skip Greaney, fixed operations manager at Gordon Chevrolet, said the number of repairs of fuel gauges in his shop shot up to 42 in May and 10 to 12 in the first two days of this month. There were only nine similar repairs in the first four months of the year, he added. “There’s been a huge spike,” he said.
Meanwhile, two women from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who say the sulphur in the gasoline damaged their cars, have filed a lawsuit against Shell Oil Co. and Motiva, alleging the companies violated state law by engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices. Shell owns half of Motiva.
The lawsuit says the companies “knew or reasonably should have known” that the gasoline with the sulphur would have damaged the vehicles but they continued selling the fuel to motorists.
First, that article is 10 years old. Second, it really highlights the differences in customer service in the US vs. Canada, one that we still see today with Chevy Dealerships.So you are saying 89 doesn't even make the grade? I found 91 overkill and at 40 cents a gallon extra. 89 is 20 cents extra and works just fine? Perhaps the key is to have a new engine like mine with 3K before the system gets gunked up, like every computer I have owned? I don't trust Shell after what they did to Florida and Canada about 10 years ago. Interesting GM twist too?
Toronto Star: Shell shells out for tainted gas: Canadians denied help for problem
TONY VAN ALPHEN
BUSINESS REPORTER
Jun. 4, 2004.
Sulphur harms gas gauges in Florida
Oil giant Shell is reimbursing motorists in Florida for fuel gauge repairs made necessary by contaminated gasoline, something its Canadian subsidiary wouldn’t do here last year.
An official for Shell Oil’s refiner in the United States has confirmed it will start sending cheques today to customers who complained about faulty gauges after buying gas containing corrosive elemental sulphur from the company and Texaco.
Johan Zaayman, a spokesperson for refiner Motiva Enterprises, said yesterday Shell has received more than 9,000 claims for the cost of repairs in less than a week from customers in Florida and nearby states after the company acknowledged a problem.
“We’re accepting claims from customers to get reimbursed for the cost of the repairs of the gas gauges,” Zaayman said in a telephone interview from Motiva’s offices in Houston.
“The cheques will begin to go out tomorrow (Friday),” Zaayman said.
In the last week, hundreds of Shell, Chevron and Texaco service stations have sold gas with traces of elemental sulphur, which quickly corrodes the contacts on sending units in tanks and, in turn, triggers faulty gauge readings.
Motorists have run out of gas and stalled when fuel gauges read full but tanks were actually empty.
Like Shell, Chevron says it has set up a special customer hotline and will cover the cost of repairs. Costs could range from $300 to $600 (U.S.), dealers say.
The reaction by Shell in the United States differs from how the company handled customers in the Toronto region last spring and summer.
A Shell official in Canada said yesterday the company handled customers appropriately here by sending them to their dealers for reimbursement of expenses.
“When we learned of the problem, we co-operated with our mutual partners (the auto industry) to understand it,” said Simone Marler, manager of public affairs for Shell Canada Products.
“We then added an ingredient to our gasoline. We directed our customers to their dealers for assistance. Our goal was to make sure our mutual customers were looked after. And they were. The issue has been resolved.”
Marler said she was unaware of the circumstances in the U.S. incident.
Unsuspecting motorists bought gas tainted with elemental sulphur at Toronto-area Shell and Petro-Canada service stations in the spring and summer of 2003. They got inaccurate gauge readings and stalling, a safety hazard on busy roads.
After a lengthy investigation, Shell and Petro-Canada concluded months later their gas contained elemental sulphur.
The two oil companies denied responsibility for the faulty fuel gauges. They stressed their products exceeded industry and government standards.
At one point, a Petro-Canada official said General Motors was responsible because it used an inferior part, but later the oil company said it wasn’t sure what the problem was.
Shell sent customers back to their dealers, primarily GM, for reimbursement of repairs. But many customers expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment by dealers and GM’s refusal to pay for repairs.
A Star investigation showed that GM had encountered the problem in 2000 in parts of Canada and the United States.
GM sent a notice to customers warning them about the problem and corrective action but it did not issue a recall.
It redesigned the fuel sensors so they could tolerate elemental sulphur. However, the company only started using the new sensors in models last year. GM confirmed it accelerated the installation of the redesigned part in more models late last year.
The investigation found GM notified dealers on how to handle customers in last year’s incident, but the company never warned customers.
Earlier this year, GM offered a free oil change and a Petro-Canada cash card worth a total of about $55 to customers who had gauge problems.
In Tampa yesterday, Skip Greaney, fixed operations manager at Gordon Chevrolet, said the number of repairs of fuel gauges in his shop shot up to 42 in May and 10 to 12 in the first two days of this month. There were only nine similar repairs in the first four months of the year, he added. “There’s been a huge spike,” he said.
Meanwhile, two women from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who say the sulphur in the gasoline damaged their cars, have filed a lawsuit against Shell Oil Co. and Motiva, alleging the companies violated state law by engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices. Shell owns half of Motiva.
The lawsuit says the companies “knew or reasonably should have known” that the gasoline with the sulphur would have damaged the vehicles but they continued selling the fuel to motorists.
My recommendation to everyone is as follows:So you are saying 89 doesn't even make the grade? I found 91 overkill and at 40 cents a gallon extra. 89 is 20 cents extra and works just fine?
If you notice throttle pulsing and/or crappy acceleration in the heat, move up to 89 octane. Run this for two tanks to get a good feel. Then repeat at 91 or higher octane. Now that you have a butt/foot dyno feel for how your Cruze behaves on 87, 89, and 91(+) pick the octane that gives you the best performance vs. cost.
If you are running any performance tune from any tuner, run 91 or higher as that is what the tune will require. GM "detuned" our engines via ECU programming as part of the changes to allow an engine designed for 91 octane to safely run on 87. Aftermarket performance tunes undo this change.
I posted this in another thread, but if it helps anyone.... Keep in mind I live in Michigan. It only got over 90 once this summer.
I've been doing a little experiment. Since May (when the temperature finally got comfortable), I've tracked my tanks via the odometer/pump. I've run 4 tanks of each octane. I started out as 3 in a row of each grade, and then my last 3 tanks, I've run one of each. I buy Shell gas. The %City/Hwy split on all these tanks was between 55-70% city. I also bought 4 tanks on a long road trip in June that I'm not including in these numbers as they were 100% highway and I didn't buy any 87 on that trip. My Cruze is basically a commuter car to/from work.
Finally, I recorded the prices of all 3 grades at every fillup, so the average prices are for the entire range of the experiment.
My stats: 87 Octane, 31.16 mpg, $3.682/gal avg, $0.1182/mile
89 Octane, 31.48 mpg, $3.831/gal avg, $0.1217/mile
93 Octane, 31.75 mpg, $4.028/gal avg, $0.1268/mile
For me, the subtle mileage increase isn't statistically significant and does not justify the extra cost of the gas (actually costs me slightly more per mile). I feel like the car runs better and is more fun to drive with 89 so that's what I've settled on. I can afford the extra .4 cents per mile. :smile: I personally can't tell the difference between 89 and 93. I'm not 100% sure that the difference between 89 and 87 isn't completely in my head either.
I've been doing a little experiment. Since May (when the temperature finally got comfortable), I've tracked my tanks via the odometer/pump. I've run 4 tanks of each octane. I started out as 3 in a row of each grade, and then my last 3 tanks, I've run one of each. I buy Shell gas. The %City/Hwy split on all these tanks was between 55-70% city. I also bought 4 tanks on a long road trip in June that I'm not including in these numbers as they were 100% highway and I didn't buy any 87 on that trip. My Cruze is basically a commuter car to/from work.
Finally, I recorded the prices of all 3 grades at every fillup, so the average prices are for the entire range of the experiment.
My stats: 87 Octane, 31.16 mpg, $3.682/gal avg, $0.1182/mile
89 Octane, 31.48 mpg, $3.831/gal avg, $0.1217/mile
93 Octane, 31.75 mpg, $4.028/gal avg, $0.1268/mile
For me, the subtle mileage increase isn't statistically significant and does not justify the extra cost of the gas (actually costs me slightly more per mile). I feel like the car runs better and is more fun to drive with 89 so that's what I've settled on. I can afford the extra .4 cents per mile. :smile: I personally can't tell the difference between 89 and 93. I'm not 100% sure that the difference between 89 and 87 isn't completely in my head either.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from pL2014 is my experience. The first time I drove up I-70 west of Denver I was running 87 octane. Even on Cruze control the car was bucking and stuttering to the point that I was concerned I had a clutch and/or transmission problem. The same drive on 91 octane is smooth as glass when it comes to the transmission. No bucking, stuttering, etc. This stretch of road is hard on most vehicles and you always see at least one on the shoulder dead from exhaustion. Here's the profile (US then Metric):
![Text Line Slope Rectangle Pattern]()
![Text Line Slope Rectangle Parallel]()
This is from the C-470/I-70 interchange (the initial drop is coming down off C-470) just west of Denver and south of Golden to Floyd Hill west of Genesee Park, Colorado. Most cars cannot maintain the posted 65 MPH up this hill. pL2014's driving environment has predominately low engine loads so the higher octane, while improving the car's performance, doesn't appear to improve it sufficiently to justify the extra pump cost. A high load environment (the graph above is an extremely high load) can easily justify the higher pump cost in terms of drivability and fuel economy. Thus my recommendation on how to determine the price/performance sweet spot for each driver.
This is from the C-470/I-70 interchange (the initial drop is coming down off C-470) just west of Denver and south of Golden to Floyd Hill west of Genesee Park, Colorado. Most cars cannot maintain the posted 65 MPH up this hill. pL2014's driving environment has predominately low engine loads so the higher octane, while improving the car's performance, doesn't appear to improve it sufficiently to justify the extra pump cost. A high load environment (the graph above is an extremely high load) can easily justify the higher pump cost in terms of drivability and fuel economy. Thus my recommendation on how to determine the price/performance sweet spot for each driver.
This is very true and also why you can't really use a city environment as a MPG testing field. All idling will not gain ANY MPG from one fuel grade to another, since your getting zero MPG in that scenario with 87 or 93 octane.pL2014's driving environment has predominately low engine loads so the higher octane, while improving the car's performance, doesn't appear to improve it sufficiently to justify the extra pump cost. A high load environment (the graph above is an extremely high load) can easily justify the higher pump cost in terms of drivability and fuel economy. Thus my recommendation on how to determine the price/performance sweet spot for each driver.
Hills in lower gears at city street speeds don't produce the same engine load as being in 4th, 5th or 6th on a hill grade. This is due to the more power down because of the torque multiplication from being in a lower gear.
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Chevrolet Cruze Forums
CruzeTalk.com forum, news, discussions and the best community for owners to discuss all things related to the Chevy Cruze.
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Cruze CTRL
75 Replies
Cruzing12
54 Replies
Valpo Cruze
50 Replies
Recommended Communities
