Jump to content

6.2 Engine: To Premium Or Not, Facts Here

truck_newbie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

truck_newbie
truck_newbie

There have been multiple threads/posts on what fuel to feed the 6.2 beast. Since GM only recommends premium fuel, it’s become a gray area and most people don’t like gray areas. Not surprisingly, there

dieselfan1
dieselfan1

Lets beat a dead horse some more. My 2 cents is if GM recommends it, use it. If you cheapskates want to save a few bucks go ahead. I didn't buy $70,000 truck to save a few bucks on fuel

BringTheRain403
BringTheRain403

If you can afford a $60k+ truck you can afford an extra $6-$8 per fill-up to put the recommended fuel in it. If your budget is that tight then maybe you shouldn't be buying that truck. Just sayin...

truck_newbie Enthusiast

truck_newbie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
47 minutes ago, gone_fishing said:

Do you know if the premium fuel was ethanol free? In my area, premium (91 octane) gas is available with ethanol (E10) or without (E0). Just depends on the station. E10 91 octane is generally less expensive then E0. Seems like E0 will usually gain you a little fuel economy. I believe that is because it has more energy (BTU's). Adding ethanol reduces it's energy content but is also cheaper. Hard to say if it pencils out.

 

I'm far from a tuning expert but do monitor timing advance and knock retard with a ScanGauge device. From what I have learned watching these numbers is the computer always seems to want to maximize timing advance as much as possible. If it picks up a few degrees of KR, it backs off timing advance (as it should). From a fuel economy stand point, I imagine the engine is more efficient when the timing is advanced? Even when cruising with a light load (flat road, no wind, not towing) a slight increase in load (incline of a bridge or overpass) can sometimes cause a little KR. Seems like the computer is always trying to push the limit a little. Read somewhere that is does "learn" where it can operate. I wonder if a 6.2 can "learn" to run on 87?

I only fill-up at Shell. In my neck of the woods, they have a sticker that says can contain up to 10% ethanol. I don't know if that also applies to the v-power/premium.

 

Your analysis on timing is what EE in the video explains. An engine that lists recommended is designed to adapt. It will try to advance timing as much as possible because that's what gives the best fuel economy and power. Based on the results in the study, it seems the L86/L87 engine has been tuned to advance timing for fuel economy only. If you switch to regular, it will retard timing and use more fuel but give you the same power. An engine that requires premium will not retard timing by much if at all. That's why the Audi in the study was knocking because it required premium. 

truck_newbie Enthusiast

truck_newbie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, aseibel said:

I don't know why anyone would choose to pay extra for a 6.2 and then put 87 in it. There are plenty of 5.3's available for the cost conscious consumer.

 

But if you do have a 6.2 and are more concerned with cost of fuel/mile, you are not coming out ahead by paying for 93 octane. Any small gains do not offset the extra cost.

 

Just like anyone with a 5.3 who buys premium fuel won't notice any benefits either.

 

Put in the gas you want, its your truck.

I don't understand your reasoning. People are of course free to put whatever fuel they want in their engine. I see this less of cheaping out on premium fuel and more of what you gain or lose by going regular. This study has proved, and backed it up with scientific data that you don't gain anything by running premium (adjusting for the mpg gain of premium) on the 6.2. 

 

Personally, if i pay for something, i want to be sure i'm getting the benefits. I paid extra for the 6.2 engine because i know i'm getting significant extra hp and torque over the 5.3. Based on this study, I've come to the realization that i'm not gaining anything by fueling the 6.2 with premium. 

  • Like 1
Hydro4acid Enthusiast

Hydro4acid

Posted
Posted

Can we assume that both previous generation 6.2L and this generation 6.2L will both have the same response to 87 octane vs 91/93? 


Ethanol will obviously provide a mpg hit, but if its cheaper without power loss...why not.

 

 

BringTheRain403 Senior Enthusiast

BringTheRain403

Posted
Posted

Ethanol would be better than premium and jump the HP by a bit too. It's a higher octane. The new motors aren't flex fuel tough and running ethanol would cause a CEL to come on...

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

aseibel Senior Enthusiast

aseibel

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, truck_newbie said:

I don't understand your reasoning. People are of course free to put whatever fuel they want in their engine. I see this less of cheaping out on premium fuel and more of what you gain or lose by going regular. This study has proved, and backed it up with scientific data that you don't gain anything by running premium (adjusting for the mpg gain of premium) on the 6.2. 

 

Personally, if i pay for something, i want to be sure i'm getting the benefits. I paid extra for the 6.2 engine because i know i'm getting significant extra hp and torque over the 5.3. Based on this study, I've come to the realization that i'm not gaining anything by fueling the 6.2 with premium. 

I'm just saying, why pay more for a truck with a 6.2, only to put regular gas in it? Did you really need the 6.2 then? If you want to take advantage of every horse under the hood, you pay for premium fuel. If you don't need those few extra horses, then a 5.3 would suit you just fine.

  • Like 2
BringTheRain403 Senior Enthusiast

BringTheRain403

Posted
Posted

If you can afford a $60k+ truck you can afford an extra $6-$8 per fill-up to put the recommended fuel in it. If your budget is that tight then maybe you shouldn't be buying that truck. Just sayin...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
UncleDave Enthusiast

UncleDave

Posted
Posted

In my neck of the woods, we don't have 91 everywhere, but we do have 93. The 93 is on average $0.30/gal more than 87. That's roughly $7 more per fill from almost empty. If I fill once per week that's an extra $364/year, or $30.33/month. If you can afford an extra $30/mo, then it's worth it to fill with premium exclusively and enjoy the benefits thereof. JM2C.

  • Like 2
truck_newbie Enthusiast

truck_newbie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
58 minutes ago, aseibel said:

I'm just saying, why pay more for a truck with a 6.2, only to put regular gas in it? Did you really need the 6.2 then? If you want to take advantage of every horse under the hood, you pay for premium fuel. If you don't need those few extra horses, then a 5.3 would suit you just fine.

That's a blanket statement and generally i would agree with you if there wasn't any data. Fortunately, there is data. Did you even look at the actual report with the numbers and horsepower/torque charts? I'll summarize below. 

 

5.3 Engine
-----------------
Power = 355 hp; Torque = 383 lb-ft

 

6.2 Engine
------------------
Power (Premium) = 420 hp; Torque (Premium) = 460 lb-ft
Power (Reg) = 417 hp; Torque (Reg) = 460 lb-ft

 

I will still be very happy with the 62 hp i'm gaining over the 5.3 compared to the 65 hp i could be getting. I'm sure that 3 hp delta makes all the difference in a 5500 lb truck. Sorry to be sarcastic, just couldn't help it. ? 

aseibel Senior Enthusiast

aseibel

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, truck_newbie said:

That's a blanket statement and generally i would agree with you if there wasn't any data. Fortunately, there is data. Did you even look at the actual report with the numbers and horsepower/torque charts? I'll summarize below. 

 

5.3 Engine
-----------------
Power = 355 hp; Torque = 383 lb-ft

 

6.2 Engine
------------------
Power (Premium) = 420 hp; Torque (Premium) = 460 lb-ft
Power (Reg) = 417 hp; Torque (Reg) = 460 lb-ft

 

I will still be very happy with the 62 hp i'm gaining over the 5.3 compared to the 65 hp i could be getting. I'm sure that 3 hp delta makes all the difference in a 5500 lb truck. Sorry to be sarcastic, just couldn't help it. ? 

No problem. I agree with you. Just be careful posting facts on the internet. The die hard 6.2 crowd will crucify you. Some people don't understand the difference between "recommended" and "required".

  • Like 2
Snakes709 Enthusiast

Snakes709

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, aseibel said:

No problem. I agree with you. Just be careful posting facts on the internet. The die hard 6.2 crowd will crucify you. Some people don't understand the difference between "recommended" and "required".

My wife was like that. Says to use 91 octane on the gas tank door of her chevy equinox. But in the manual it says 91 is recommended but 87 is acceptable and the ecu will adapt to the octane change. I took the suv across canada/northern states and didnt notice a few gas stations in the states the pumps are 93, 89 amd 87 left to right where its 87, 89 and 91 here. So i accidentally filled up with 93 and holy **** what a difference in that little 2.0 turbo.  

 

Barely felt a difference, if any, on my 6.2 when i put in 91 after the dealership put in 87.  Maybe a little better throttle response but no power or mpg increase. 

truck_newbie Enthusiast

truck_newbie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
48 minutes ago, aseibel said:

No problem. I agree with you. Just be careful posting facts on the internet. The die hard 6.2 crowd will crucify you. Some people don't understand the difference between "recommended" and "required".

Your reply made creating this thread worth it.

 

I really like the saying by Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

  • Thanks 2
amxguy1970 Senior Enthusiast

amxguy1970

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Roscopcoletrain said:

curious why some 6.2s knock/ping on 87 vs others 

Placebo effect, they want to hear/feel it (yet most don't know what they are listening/feeling for). I bet they want to feel like they own a motor that only runs on premium like a sports car... If you hear/feel it the truck pulls timing and it goes away and doesn't hurt anything. With modern cars they can detect the smallest of knocks/pings and fix it before it is even noticed by the driver in most cases. 

 

Tyler

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...