Jump to content

Better MPG on 93?

StevenStarke

Recommended Posts

StevenStarke Enthusiast

StevenStarke

Posted
Posted

I think i read someone else say this but I don’t remember. I tried a full tank of 93 and I swear to god, it seemed like I got better MPG? I didn’t track miles or anything but I may have to. Anyone else notice this? I’m curious to see if it’s better enough to justify the extra cost?

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
lew-e Enthusiast

lew-e

Posted
Posted

I’ve noticed this. Others have noticed it too. Some say it’s an anomaly because you actively try to get better mileage when you are paying attention to it. However, I found I had better engine response and mpg. The cost was not offset though. You figure I’m paying 1.90 a gallon for 89. Or 2.50!!!!!! for 93? I’d need to be adding a ton of mpg to offset the cost. Instead I saw 1-2 mpg difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KA0S Enthusiast

KA0S

Posted
Posted

Be careful, the resident mathmagician will be all over you for those comments.....[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]

Sent from my SM-N960W using Tapatalk

Capt Bob Enthusiast

Capt Bob

Posted
Posted

I'll guess one would need to see a 6 mpg increase with the higher octane to break about even.

 

Engine displacement isn't a factor.

StevenStarke Enthusiast

StevenStarke

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have a 5.3. 87 octane is 2.35ish here in NY and 93 is like $2.80.  It’s prob not worth it. But i wasn’t paying attention to it, I just noticed it took longer to go down than normal. AND I added 34” tires right after filling up on 93. 

aseibel Senior Enthusiast

aseibel

Posted
Posted

You can decide if you trust these sources, i'm just sharing.

 

"If your car does not require premium gas, there are no added benefits to your car’s performance or longevity. Simply put, you’re paying good money for something you don’t need. Premium costs 15-30 cents more a gallon than regular. In a consumer notice, the Federal Trade Commission, notes: “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.”

https://www.truecar.com/blog/2011/03/03/premium-vs-regular-gas/

 

"Designed for performance cars with large, powerful engines, premium also helps minimize the risk of preignition inside highly-stressed, hot engine cylinders. On a track, the extra boost given by premium can mean a few tenths of a second difference on a lap time.  In the real world, it barely affects performance, or fuel economy."

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1077286_busted-7-things-that-wont-improve-your-gas-mileage

 

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted

Giving the engine a higher octane (more resistant to pre-detonation, knock, or early combustion) allows the ECU to advance the ignition timing and variable valve timing. Advanced ignition timing leads to a more thorough and complete burn of the A/F charge, which means more power per RPM. This means the engine can become more efficient and make more HP per gallon. This can easily work the other way also, if you are making more power, and using it, you will burn more fuel. If you are loafing around just as easy on premium vs. regular, you should in theory get better mileage on premium but I would not expect the savings to pay off the difference in the price.

 

These new LT family DI motors have a high compression ratio, even the 5.3L L83 is a 11:1 with the L86/87 being 11.5:1. Consider that compared to yesterdays 5.7L Vortec 350cid engine, which was at a 9.5:1 compression ratio, and the hotrodders ran 91+ in anything over 10:1 in the 90's. That alone is enough to convince me to use 89+ oct or E85 if available at all times. 

M1ck3y Senior Enthusiast

M1ck3y

Posted
Posted

The 6.2 is designed for 93, says right in the manual that 93 octane is highly recommended. No different then the vette. If shell had 93 octane where I am, I would be all over it. Or at least if I could find a 93 without ethanol (which is impossible?). Not because it gives better mileage (it will a bit) but because its the best I could run in it. If I wanted I could run 87 but mpgs will drop and power output will drop. But, in the long run I'd probably save money.

DONWT15 Enthusiast

DONWT15

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, M1ck3y said:

Or at least if I could find a 93 without ethanol (which is impossible?).

Try looking in areas that cater to boaters. Gas with ethanol is the kiss of death for outboards. They sit for months at a time and the ethanol separates out.

gothp28 Enthusiast

gothp28

Posted
Posted
I have a 5.3. 87 octane is 2.35ish here in NY and 93 is like $2.80.  It’s prob not worth it. But i wasn’t paying attention to it, I just noticed it took longer to go down than normal. AND I added 34” tires right after filling up on 93. 
If you have a 2019 please post pictures with the 34s. Not too many pictures floating around.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

gothp28 Enthusiast

gothp28

Posted
Posted
F80C659C-7F64-4A81-ACB5-591221398BF5.thumb.jpeg.9f0b8eb2a67b591d61dcee7af840dfc1.jpeg
Truck looks great! Did you have to have any rubbing? Lift? Offset? I take delivery of mine in 2 weeks and would like to purchase rims and tires. Sorry for all the questions but I appreciate any answers that you give.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Mardo Enthusiast

Mardo

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, StevenStarke said:

I think i read someone else say this but I don’t remember. I tried a full tank of 93 and I swear to god, it seemed like I got better MPG? I didn’t track miles or anything but I may have to. Anyone else notice this? I’m curious to see if it’s better enough to justify the extra cost?

I'm in Arkansas and our local Walmart has 93 octane with no ethanol for around 50 cents more than 87 octane with ethanol. I figure I get 2-3 mpg more with the 93 without ethanol. It may not be worth it mpg wise but it sure seems to run better on 93 without ethanol. I have an AT4 with 6.2.

T1Kaiju Enthusiast

T1Kaiju

Posted
Posted

Blackbear posted an article years ago about the ls truck engines needing higher octane with their increased compression ratios. The gen 4 5.3 likes 89 better than 87, and you can tell a difference...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • KARNUT
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By KARNUT · Posted

      I find it amusing the OP doesn’t realize this threads heading includes several engines. He should have posted in the off topic section if he wanted a more narrow focus. I really appreciate and find amusing that he actually pointed out one of my many vehicles. The Odyssey. That happens to use 0-20 oil. I love pushing his buttons. 
    • Black02Silverado
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By Black02Silverado · Posted

      Maybe, but it seems he is the only one that has backed up data to prove what he is stating. I think he is doing this more because he enjoys it and wants to get the information out to us. He's got the knowledge and access to the proper equipment and having the funds doesn't hurt.  I would love to do what he is doing and would do it if and when I hit the Powerball.  I'm not a Tribologist by any means but love to learn what I can.   I would bet there would be doubting people out there if a completely independent lab with high quality work and highly respected in the automotive industry, put out information like this.  The world can't be pleased, one just has to take the information that they are given, do more of their own research to find actual lab data to back up what they are trying to figure/find out.  Most don't bother, they just want to believe what they first see.     I don't have the minimax but my 6.2 in my 2019 Silverado with 64k miles shows excellent UOA results with 0w-20 and for my own purposes 5w-20.  Since not much of a change using 5w. I liked the data sheet information on the SS 5w-20 and figured I would give it a try.  Still the same viscosity at 100℃.   In the end we all just do what makes us happy, life is too short to get upset over trivial social media.   On a side note, I do feel GM has dropped the ball and just cares about the bottom dollar and not quality anymore.  "Like a Rock" has been long gone.  Seems "Built Ford Tough" has as well.
    • Tyler Gibbs
      Thoughts on these wheels?

      By Tyler Gibbs · Posted

      Better than stock but that's like putting lipstick on a pig
    • flattop
      2026 sierra bad brake controller

      By flattop · Posted

      Hello, my 3 month old Sierra Elevation wont recognize a trailer with electric brakes? All the lights work correctly, but no power to the brakes?   This is the factory installed brake controller. If you manually push the knob, the display shows the power % but does not light up like my 2022 silverado.   I have an appointment with the dealer, but was checking to see if anyone else has seen this issue.    Thanks, 
    • Black02Silverado
      Post your latest oil change.

      By Black02Silverado · Posted

      Been using SS 0w-20 from new, but wanted to change to the 5w-20 because I liked the data on the data sheet, to me it seems like a little better product. But as you can see, not much difference. This is also with running a mix of 10 gallons E85 to a tank topped with 93. It isn't a flex fuel vehicle so any higher I get a CEL for running lean on both banks. Yes my mileage takes a hit. Instead of 20 mpg I normally get on trips I get 17mpg. This is also using EaO17 filter.  What is amazing is I have the AMSOIL cone filter on it since I have the GM Performance intake installed and that air filter has 44k miles on it.  I just take it out and shop vac it off once a year.  I use the upholstery tool on my shop vac.  Works well.   

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...