Gas ?

[Suhvas2006]

Hey everyone just wondering what type of gas is everyone using? Any specific reason to use one over the other?

[econometrics]

The cheapest 87 octane I can find. 

 

I’ve never noticed enough difference from running 89 octane to justify paying $0.20/gal more. 

[killramos]

I have a long standing preference for gas with no ethanol in it.  If only because it increases range.

 

My truck with the 6.2 hasn’t arrived yet, but requiring 93 is a bit of a pickle. I can get great 91 octane pretty much everywhere. But for 93 I need to run the ethanol filled 94 Octane from PetroCanada or Husky. My preference is Shell VPower ethanol free 91 in my other high performance cars.

 

i wonder how sticky the engine is on 93 octane or if any premium (91) will do. I think it helps that my elevation is 3,400ft above sea level (lower air density affecting effective compression at TDC) 

[HeySkippyDog]

I have a long standing preference for gas with no ethanol in it.  If only because it increases range.

 

My truck with the 6.2 hasn’t arrived yet, but requiring 93 is a bit of a pickle. I can get great 91 octane pretty much everywhere. But for 93 I need to run the ethanol filled 94 Octane from PetroCanada or Husky. My preference is Shell VPower ethanol free 91 in my other high performance cars.

 

i wonder how sticky the engine is on 93 octane or if any premium (91) will do. I think it helps that my elevation is 3,400ft above sea level (lower air density affecting effective compression at TDC) 

Honestly, at the compression even the 5.3 is at, I use mid-grade at a minimum. Some 87 is ok, but unless it's from a Mobil station, it is ping city under load.

 

Can you get E85? Here in the US, E85 is cheaper per gallon but with less miles per gallon. I would use that.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[killramos]

I think there is 1 station in town that has E85, but my 19 isn’t rated to run E85

[OnTheReel]

I use E10 93 from reputable (busy) gas stations. I can’t get away from ethanol in this part of the state. It is mandated in everything, even the marine fuel sold at the gas docks.

 

While 91 may be fine (and used to be the minimum recommended for the 6.2 until 2016 or 17)...I suspect that the economy, wear and engine performance penalties are greater when using a low octane fuel than they would be by using Ethanol fuel. Given the choice I’d take the higher octane.

[JR09country]

The 6.2l.and the 5.3l share the same compression, so i run 93 in my 5.3 since they recommend it for the 6.2. I only fill up once or twice a month so its not a big deal price wise.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[HeySkippyDog]

I think there is 1 station in town that has E85, but my 19 isn’t rated to run E85

Oh good lord.

Why?! It's 2019. The only difference is a sensor to detect ethanol level and the PCM reads the signal input and adjusts parameters.

I don't know why they have standardized so many options but still not E85 compatibility in a gas truck.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk

[killramos]

Dunno, E85 isn’t really a big deal to me (like I said I have a disdain for ethanol as a fuel).

 

I imagine GM felt that the extra sensors and complexity of supporting E85 wasn’t worth it. 

[eppieguy]

6.2 I run mostly 91, 93 when I can. In NJ we only have gas with Ethanol.

[Suhvas2006]

Reason I’m asking is my wife told me last night that when she filled the tank she put regular gas the cheapest since that’s what she would put in our suburban. I’ve been putting premium but the question is, is it really worth spending the extra for premium? Better MPG? 

[aseibel]

1 minute ago, Suhvas2006 said:

is it really worth spending the extra for premium? Better MPG? 

I don't think so. You'll get a bunch of 6.2 owners on here who swear it yields more power or whatever. Simple fact is, to justify it from an economic standpoint you'd need to see ~10% improvement in MPGS. That's just not going to happen. The engine sensors adjust to whatever gas is in the tank. No way you're coming out ahead buying premium.

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/to-save-money-on-gas-stop-buying-premium.html

I run the regular from Costco. Best deal around.

[eppieguy]

I have never tried any lower grade fuels because I'm pretty sure it says Premium fuel required, or 91 /93 minimum octane required, something like that on the gas door for the 6.2 engine.

[killramos]

7 minutes ago, aseibel said:

I don't think so. You'll get a bunch of 6.2 owners on here who swear it yields more power or whatever. Simple fact is, to justify it from an economic standpoint you'd need to see ~10% improvement in MPGS. That's just not going to happen. The engine sensors adjust to whatever gas is in the tank. No way you're coming out ahead buying premium.

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/to-save-money-on-gas-stop-buying-premium.html

I run the regular from Costco. Best deal around.

If you carefully read that article rather than cherry picking sentences that you agree with you would see that your statement isn’t correct. 

 

Running higher octane in a car not designed for it will not yield better fuel economy. Tossing 91 in your Honda Civic that requires 85 or 87 will do literally nothing, it’s not tuned for it. All you are doing is burning money in that case. 

 

However that does not mean you should run lower octane fuel than required by the manufacturer for a vehicle that requires premium fuel. It 100% will result in increased fuel consumption and loss of performance, this is an indisputable engineering fact. If you don’t want to run high octane fuel don’t buy a car that requires it.

 

People mistake modern cars being smart enough to detect knock and retard timing as meaning high octane is not required anymore, this is false. You car will run, and not damage itself, with low octane fuel but it will run like shit far from the specs and parameters it was designed for. Massive drop in performance is to be expected and running your engine outside of design parameters long term isn’t smart.
 

coles notes: as I said if you don’t want to run premium don’t buy a car that requires it.

[aseibel]

3 minutes ago, killramos said:

If you carefully read that article rather than cherry picking sentences that you agree with you would see that your statement isn’t correct. 

 

Running higher octane in a car not designed for it will not yield better fuel economy. Tossing 91 in your Honda Civic that requires 85 or 87 will do literally nothing, it’s not tuned for it. All you are doing is burning money in that case. 

 

However that does not mean you should run lower octane fuel than required by the manufacturer for a vehicle that requires premium fuel. It 100% will result in increased fuel consumption and loss of performance, this is an indisputable engineering fact. If you don’t want to run high octane fuel don’t buy a car that requires it.

 

People mistake modern cars being smart enough to detect knock and retard timing as meaning high octane is not required anymore, this is false. You car will run, and not damage itself, with low octane fuel but it will run like shit far from the specs and parameters it was designed for. Massive drop in performance is to be expected and running your engine outside of design parameters long term isn’t smart.
 

coles notes: as I said if you don’t want to run premium don’t buy a car that requires it.

Please show me where GM says your engine requires premium? 

 

It's recommended, not required. That means you will see some small power gains while using premium. Not enough to justify the increased cost, that's all i'm saying.