Which Gas?
09-29-2011, 09:49 PM
#81
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Anderson, SC
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha, allright dude I lied, so shoot me 
The example that I was actually trying to give is that filling up my V6 with 87 compared to filling up my V8 with 93 is seriously the same loss in gas, they both lose the same amount of gas at the same time, no difference in that but 93 does help perform better. I experimented with the V6 by putting 93 on it once before going to the races and I noticed a difference in performance instantly. Ever since I bought the SS, everybody kept saying, "Man that's more gas for you," "damn thats gonna swallow more then your V6" and blah blah blah; I have NOT notice my V8 guzzling more then my V6.
The example that I was actually trying to give is that filling up my V6 with 87 compared to filling up my V8 with 93 is seriously the same loss in gas, they both lose the same amount of gas at the same time, no difference in that but 93 does help perform better. I experimented with the V6 by putting 93 on it once before going to the races and I noticed a difference in performance instantly. Ever since I bought the SS, everybody kept saying, "Man that's more gas for you," "damn thats gonna swallow more then your V6" and blah blah blah; I have NOT notice my V8 guzzling more then my V6.
09-29-2011, 09:52 PM
#82
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Anderson, SC
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I put premium in my car and have occasionally put mid-grade but i could never bring my self to put the cheap **** in...especially if ur car is modded up u do not want to run anything except 91 or higher IMO
09-29-2011, 11:16 PM
#83
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Round Rock TX
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-29-2011, 11:20 PM
#84
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudes, there is honestly no difference in gas if you think about it. I had my V6 Camaro for seven years and ONLY put 87, I now have a SS and ONLY put 93 and I seriously do NOT feel any differenece in performance and I spent the same amount of gas with both cars cause I still work at the same place driving 40 miles per day. Gas is all a myth and it's just a way to get more money out of us. I put the same amount to fill both cars up and they both swallow the exact same. IT's A SCAM!!!!
BTW, a V8 will definitely chug more gas than a V6, I don't know what you're talking about.
09-29-2011, 11:35 PM
#85
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,249
Likes: 0
Received 1,682 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
It's not a scam, you're just a conspiracy theorist. All corporations did not just get together and say, "Hey, let's sell the same stuff for higher prices." It doesn't work that way. Higher octane gas is needed because it has higher resistance to ignition from compression. High performance engines, with high compression ratios, need high octane gas. It is no scam, it is what you need.
09-30-2011, 01:00 AM
#86
9 Second Club
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: homeless
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're absolutely right, but people will believe what they want to believe. I can't tell you how many threads I've seen that are filled with confusion about octane and it's relationship with combustion; the bullshit runs deep and can't be stopped. Some people have it in their heads that more octane always equals more power, and some people think it makes no difference at all. Neither is correct, but don't try telling them that.
09-30-2011, 01:49 AM
#87
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,249
Likes: 0
Received 1,682 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Nobody is being labeled as anything for asking a question. However, there was no question asked. The statement was made that different octanes were a myth and that all gas was the same. This is simply not true. This is not a matter of opinion. It's not even a matter of thinking outside the box, it's just incorrect.
As for my post that you quoted above, once again this was not in regards to a question. It was in regards to people that have the firm belief that more octane always equals more power (or that it never makes a difference either way). I've seen people on this site make those claims, they are incorrect and steer those who want to learn in the wrong direction.
Question: When you see an old gas station go out of business, and a new company, such as Shell, takes over that property, what happens to the gas in the tanks underground from the previous company? Some people argue it's all the same gasoline just a different label or company name attached to it.
As for the difference in brands of fuel, there are additive packages that may vary from brand to brand, but another matter of importance is tank (station) maintenance. Poorly maintained tanks can lead to bad gas, no matter what brand is in them at the time.
09-30-2011, 01:57 AM
#88
9 Second Club
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: homeless
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is being labeled as anything for asking a question. However, there was no question asked. The statement was made that different octanes were a myth and that all gas was the same. This is simply not true. This is not a matter of opinion. It's not even a matter of thinking outside the box, it's just incorrect.
As for my post that you quoted above, once again this was not in regards to a question. It was in regards to people that have the firm belief that more octane always equals more power (or that it never makes a difference either way). I've seen people on this site make those claims, they are incorrect and steer those who want to learn in the wrong direction.
Any station can sell any gas they want, and often times they will buy whatever is cheapest. However, to keep a branded name, I believe there is a set minimum (gallons) that they must buy (and sell) from said brand per year.
As for the difference in brands of fuel, there are additive packages that may vary from brand to brand, but another matter of importance is tank (station) maintenance. Poorly maintained tanks can lead to bad gas, no matter what brand is in them at the time.
09-30-2011, 02:09 AM
#89
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,249
Likes: 0
Received 1,682 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
Lower octane combusts more easily, and will make more power right up to the point where detonation begins. At that point, you need to increase octane to resist unwanted, early combustion.
In a modern engine, we have knock sensors that will pull timing when detonation is observed, so lower-than-required octane will always reduce engine power (unless you kill the low octane spark tables), and obviously, detonation itself will also reduce power production. This is why your test results won't really prove or disprove the relationship between octane and horsepower.
On the other hand, it would be easier to demonstrate this with an engine that will run without detonation on 87 octane to start with. Then, as you increase octane you will notice performance (and MPG) decrease.
In a modern engine, we have knock sensors that will pull timing when detonation is observed, so lower-than-required octane will always reduce engine power (unless you kill the low octane spark tables), and obviously, detonation itself will also reduce power production. This is why your test results won't really prove or disprove the relationship between octane and horsepower.
On the other hand, it would be easier to demonstrate this with an engine that will run without detonation on 87 octane to start with. Then, as you increase octane you will notice performance (and MPG) decrease.
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
If an engine is able to run *optimally* (meaning, no timing advance reduction from knock retard) on 87 octane, then adding additional octane will reduce engine performance and mileage. Same is true of an engine that can run optimally on 93 octane....if you add 100 octane, it can only hurt.
Higher octane is harder to combust and burns slower. This is great to prevent detonation and allow full timing advance in high(er) compression applications; but the harder, slower burn does nothing to help (and will decrease) engine performance when not needed.
Higher octane is harder to combust and burns slower. This is great to prevent detonation and allow full timing advance in high(er) compression applications; but the harder, slower burn does nothing to help (and will decrease) engine performance when not needed.
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
The LS1 was designed to run optimally on 91-93 (premium) octane. This is the factory recommendation, and will provide best performance in a stock LS1 engine.
If you run an LS1 on 87 octane, there are knock sensors which will reduce spark timing and allow operation of lower octane fuels with reduced detonation. This, however, is not optimal for performance, since the engine was designed with spark and compression characteristics that require premium fuel to properly take advantage of. Reduced timing advance and detonation will hurt power.
Having said that, if you put 100 octane in your stock LS1, it will reduce performance. It is far more octane than is needed to keep full timing advance without any detonation.
Similarly, if you put 93 octane in an engine that was designed to run optimally (no detonation, no spark reduction) on 87 octane, it will reduce performance.
If you run an LS1 on 87 octane, there are knock sensors which will reduce spark timing and allow operation of lower octane fuels with reduced detonation. This, however, is not optimal for performance, since the engine was designed with spark and compression characteristics that require premium fuel to properly take advantage of. Reduced timing advance and detonation will hurt power.
Having said that, if you put 100 octane in your stock LS1, it will reduce performance. It is far more octane than is needed to keep full timing advance without any detonation.
Similarly, if you put 93 octane in an engine that was designed to run optimally (no detonation, no spark reduction) on 87 octane, it will reduce performance.
09-30-2011, 10:11 AM
#91
TECH Fanatic
[QUOTE=PACKERSz28Camaro;15450004]LOL. I'd love to see your theory tested how it's actually cheaper to buy 91. EDIT: Are you actually saying 91 is cheaper in our cars? [QUOTE]
Are you, and anyone else saying they save money by buying cheap gas really arguing with basic math? 5 mpg sounds like a pretty exteme case, but it's possible. 2-3mpg seems to be the norm for a ls1 powered car.
So lets take a 1000 mile round trip and fill the tank with gas that cost $3.50/gallon, and get an average of 25 mpg.
1000miles/25mpg=40gallons x $3.50=$140
Now lets take that same trip and fill the tank with 91 octane that cost $3.80/gallon, and get an average of 27.5 mpg.
1000miles/27.5mpg+=36.364gallons x $3.80=$138.18
Now is that $1.82 going to make any real difference in your bank account at the end of the month, not likely. But it proves that cheap gas doesn't save you any money if you car gains the average 2-3mpg that most ls1's do with 91 octain.
I think I've said all I can about this. So I for one am done posting in this thread, unless someone ask me a quetion, or quote's one of my post, and I feel they need a respons. Oh, and if any of my math gives you any trouble ask a 4th grader to help you with it.
Are you, and anyone else saying they save money by buying cheap gas really arguing with basic math? 5 mpg sounds like a pretty exteme case, but it's possible. 2-3mpg seems to be the norm for a ls1 powered car.
So lets take a 1000 mile round trip and fill the tank with gas that cost $3.50/gallon, and get an average of 25 mpg.
1000miles/25mpg=40gallons x $3.50=$140
Now lets take that same trip and fill the tank with 91 octane that cost $3.80/gallon, and get an average of 27.5 mpg.
1000miles/27.5mpg+=36.364gallons x $3.80=$138.18
Now is that $1.82 going to make any real difference in your bank account at the end of the month, not likely. But it proves that cheap gas doesn't save you any money if you car gains the average 2-3mpg that most ls1's do with 91 octain.
I think I've said all I can about this. So I for one am done posting in this thread, unless someone ask me a quetion, or quote's one of my post, and I feel they need a respons. Oh, and if any of my math gives you any trouble ask a 4th grader to help you with it.
09-30-2011, 02:26 PM
#93
TECH Fanatic
I did for the first 3 months I owned the car. filled it with 89 octane for the first 4 or 5 tanks didn't think I was getting as good of gas mileage as I expected only around 22-24mpg I switched to 91 octane gas from BP and my mileage went to 25-27mpg. I was running low one day around mid summer and was about to leave on a trip about 200 miles away and didn't want to back track 10mile just to fill up with 91 octane from BP so I filled up with 89 from the station here in town only got 24mpg on the way there filled up at a phillips 66 with 91 on the way home and got 27 and know the wind wasn't blowing in one direction there was only a light breeze that day. Like I said you can't argue with basic math.
09-30-2011, 02:52 PM
#94
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets take a 1000 mile round trip and fill the tank with gas that cost $3.50/gallon, and get an average of 25 mpg.
1000miles/25mpg=40gallons x $3.50=$140
Now lets take that same trip and fill the tank with 91 octane that cost $3.80/gallon, and get an average of 27.5 mpg.
1000miles/27.5mpg+=36.364gallons x $3.80=$138.18
1000miles/25mpg=40gallons x $3.50=$140
Now lets take that same trip and fill the tank with 91 octane that cost $3.80/gallon, and get an average of 27.5 mpg.
1000miles/27.5mpg+=36.364gallons x $3.80=$138.18
93: 3000mi/18mpg = 166.67gal
166.67gal x $3.90 = $650.00
87: 3000mi/16mpg = 187.50gal
187.50gal x $3.63 = $680.63
Difference: $680.63 - $650.00 = $30.63
I accounted for price differences, that's about what it is in my area. $30.63 savings every 3000 miles will more than pay for oil changes. Now, noticeable to some is that the 87 user will use more gas than the 93 user. Given that quite a few people go out of their way for gas, or simply value their time, I'll do the following math, assuming the average driver fills up after using 12 gallons (tank ~1/4 full)
93: 166.67gal / 12 = 14 fill-ups (rounded from 13.89)
87: 187.50gal / 12 = 16 fill-ups (rounded from 15.625)
So the 87 user ends up making 2 more trips to the gas station as well. It's made worse if the driver is the type that buys from the convenience store when they go to the gas station. Over the lifetime of the engine (we'll take it at 150,000 miles),
$30.63 x 50 = $1531.25
2 fill-ups x 50 = 100 fill-ups (assuming here that everyone fills up when they change oil)
(187.50gal - 166.67gal) x 50 = 1041.67gal
So, over the life of an engine, the 93 user saved $1531.25 (almost enough for a rebuilt engine and trans) and filled up 100 times less compared to the 87 user. Not to mention that the 93 user put 1041.67 less gallons through his car's fuel system and engine (much less wear). It shows how much things add up over time.
Note: Some figures were slightly rounded in the equations to make this easier to read. If there was significant rounding, it was made clear. Other insignificant roundings were made, but the fully unrounded figures were still the ones used while working out the math.
Last edited by Metal Muscle; 10-02-2011 at 12:53 AM.
10-07-2011, 11:37 AM
#100
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,249
Likes: 0
Received 1,682 Likes
on
1,205 Posts
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
If an engine is able to run *optimally* (meaning, no timing advance reduction from knock retard) on 87 octane, then adding additional octane will reduce engine performance and mileage. Same is true of an engine that can run optimally on 93 octane....if you add 100 octane, it can only hurt.
Higher octane is harder to combust and burns slower. This is great to prevent detonation and allow full timing advance in high(er) compression applications; but the harder, slower burn does nothing to help (and will decrease) engine performance when not needed.
Higher octane is harder to combust and burns slower. This is great to prevent detonation and allow full timing advance in high(er) compression applications; but the harder, slower burn does nothing to help (and will decrease) engine performance when not needed.
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
The LS1 was designed to run optimally on 91-93 (premium) octane. This is the factory recommendation, and will provide best performance in a stock LS1 engine.
If you run an LS1 on 87 octane, there are knock sensors which will reduce spark timing and allow operation of lower octane fuels with reduced detonation. This, however, is not optimal for performance, since the engine was designed with spark and compression characteristics that require premium fuel to properly take advantage of. Reduced timing advance and detonation will hurt power.
Having said that, if you put 100 octane in your stock LS1, it will reduce performance. It is far more octane than is needed to keep full timing advance without any detonation.
Similarly, if you put 93 octane in an engine that was designed to run optimally (no detonation, no spark reduction) on 87 octane, it will reduce performance.
If you run an LS1 on 87 octane, there are knock sensors which will reduce spark timing and allow operation of lower octane fuels with reduced detonation. This, however, is not optimal for performance, since the engine was designed with spark and compression characteristics that require premium fuel to properly take advantage of. Reduced timing advance and detonation will hurt power.
Having said that, if you put 100 octane in your stock LS1, it will reduce performance. It is far more octane than is needed to keep full timing advance without any detonation.
Similarly, if you put 93 octane in an engine that was designed to run optimally (no detonation, no spark reduction) on 87 octane, it will reduce performance.