Jump to content

Quick Octane/Station Question

vancealot29
 Share

Recommended Posts

vancealot29 Enthusiast

vancealot29

Posted
Posted

Hey All,

 

Just traded in my 5.3 for a 6.2.  I've always used Race Trac/Wawa (87 octane in the 5.3), as they are closest to the house/work.  Question is, for the 6.2, would you go with 93 octane at Race Trac/Wawa for $3.55 (current price) or 91 octane at Costco for $3.05 (current price).  Just curious if the extra $10-$12 per tank is necessary for 93 over 91.  I have a Costco closeish to the house and another on the way home from work.  Not completely ideal, but also not out of the way.  I have no problem spending the extra ~$500 over the course of the year if needed to keep the engine in optimal running condition.  Also, I don't want to get in an octane pissing match, just looking for feedback.

 

Thanks,

mwipp66 Enthusiast

mwipp66

Posted
Posted

If you read the user manual, it recommends 93 octane for peak performance and states 87 octane is fine. I had a 2019 6.2l and only ran 87 octane with no issues (recently upgraded to a 2500). Car and drive had an article back in 2016 I believe where they did dyno runs on a escalade with a 6.2l with both 87 and 93. With 87 it lost ~20hp is what they found. So if you are okay with a little power loss, you should be fine.

 

So basically both 87 and 93 are safe, but your engine is changing timings while running 87 resulting in power loss

btj_z71 Enthusiast

btj_z71

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, vancealot29 said:

Hey All,

 

Just traded in my 5.3 for a 6.2.  I've always used Race Trac/Wawa (87 octane in the 5.3), as they are closest to the house/work.  Question is, for the 6.2, would you go with 93 octane at Race Trac/Wawa for $3.55 (current price) or 91 octane at Costco for $3.05 (current price).  Just curious if the extra $10-$12 per tank is necessary for 93 over 91.  I have a Costco closeish to the house and another on the way home from work.  Not completely ideal, but also not out of the way.  I have no problem spending the extra ~$500 over the course of the year if needed to keep the engine in optimal running condition.  Also, I don't want to get in an octane pissing match, just looking for feedback.

 

Thanks,

I would add here that you should use Top Tier gas.  I didn't check to see if the stations you mentioned are top tier certified, but that gas has more detergents to keep your engine running better and longer.  

 

On the topic of octane, if you experience knocking then you can try running 89 vs 87.  Or, whatever the mid-grade fuel type is in your location.  Another option is using 87 then adding fuel additives to bring up the octane and/or detergents.

  • Like 1
Black02Silverado Senior Enthusiast

Black02Silverado

Posted
Posted

I purchased the 6.2 for the performance so I run 93.  If you can afford it and it isn't an issue then go that route.  If money is tight then go the WaWa route. In the end you need to be happy.

  • Like 2
CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

If the costco stuff is that much cheaper, just run that. Some people are so picky about 93 octane and top tier bologna. I have never once went to a gas station and wondered if they used top tier fuels and never had a problem with how my vehicles run.

 

If you can feel a difference that isn't just in your head between 91 and 93 octane you must be super duper special.

  • Like 1
Adamace1 Enthusiast

Adamace1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Costco is top tier. If GM recommends 93 and says 87 in fine. I think for the price the Costco 91 should be good. 

 

I wouldn't have got the 6.2. I don't have/ want to spend the extra money on the motor and fuel. But if I did buy the 6.2 I would run 93 to get the full potential of the motor.

Edited by Adamace1
  • Like 1
CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

I get that people want the full potential but when 99% of your driving is at steady speed, idling, in traffic and not 100% throttle, can your really feel that 5-10hp difference??

 

I'll end my rant now. I've tuned plenty of cars/trucks to know that it doesn't make a big enough difference unless in some extreme conditions.

  • Like 1
MG386 Enthusiast

MG386

Posted
Posted

What elevation are you driving?  You will find that lower elevations closer to sea level will offer 93.  I'm in the PHX area 1300+ average and there is no 93, only 91.  Basically the thicker the air (lower elevations), the higher octane you need to make highest power.  Close to sea level, 93 will give highest power for the 6.2, if you run 1k feet elevation and higher, 91 is fine.  If you are up in the mountains 5k+, you are probably fine with 89 to 87.

AlaskaErik Enthusiast

AlaskaErik

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MG386 said:

What elevation are you driving?  You will find that lower elevations closer to sea level will offer 93.  I'm in the PHX area 1300+ average and there is no 93, only 91.  Basically the thicker the air (lower elevations), the higher octane you need to make highest power.  Close to sea level, 93 will give highest power for the 6.2, if you run 1k feet elevation and higher, 91 is fine.  If you are up in the mountains 5k+, you are probably fine with 89 to 87.

I'm at sea level and all premium at every station is 90 octane.  No such thing as 91 octane or higher anywhere in the state.  Regular is 87 and midgrade is 88.5.

vancealot29 Enthusiast

vancealot29

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, MG386 said:

What elevation are you driving? 

FL peninsula for 95%+ of my driving. Never more than 150 ft. above sea level, probably usually closer to 50 ft.

 

I agree with most that 91 will suffice, but I will probably still stick with the 93 for piece of mind.

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,913
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Smitty462
    Newest Member
    Smitty462
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 587 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...