87 octane in LS1
#23
guess the "low octane" timing tables in the computer were just bs....
i agree with most all the people in here..run the right fuel as suggested from the manufacturer..
#24
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes sense they do it to save money where they can because the car can run on 87. But I do have to pitch in that I ran 89 for 2-3 tanks when I first got my car, then I ran 93 and it was a noticeable difference in power and I got a little better MPG. When 93 is 20-30 cents higher than 87 you are only spending 3-4 bucks more for your car to perform its best.
#25
11 Second Club
iTrader: (18)
My basically stock 5.3 Silverado pulled timing on the stock tune with 87 octane...if you run that crap in a higher compression LS1 you probably just need to get a different car.
To the OP: be easy with it, avoid any high load situations that lug the engine and no WOT pulls. If you can, siphon the crap out and use it in your lawn mower or another vehicle. If you can't try to cruise out of overdrive and upshift less to help burn through the crap quicker. Try to get below half a tank then fill up with the best premium you can get.
To the OP: be easy with it, avoid any high load situations that lug the engine and no WOT pulls. If you can, siphon the crap out and use it in your lawn mower or another vehicle. If you can't try to cruise out of overdrive and upshift less to help burn through the crap quicker. Try to get below half a tank then fill up with the best premium you can get.
#26
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only ever run 87 in my TA, twice. Both times were when I was down to empty and didn't want to risk running out the rest of the tank on the way to the gas station, so I used very little of the 87, and wouldn't get anywhere near WOT under fear that something would break. Don't beat on it until you're sure at least the majority of the 87 is out of the tank, then you should be fine.
#28
TECH Junkie
Same here. I just follow the recommendation of GM.
Click on the photo to read it. This label is on my '01 T/A gas lid.
Attachment 377912
Click on the photo to read it. This label is on my '01 T/A gas lid.
Attachment 377912
Last edited by NC01TA; 09-20-2013 at 08:57 AM.
#30
Holy **** guys. .. I wish I would have known this. I have ran my cat hard and all I put in mine is 87 or 89... that's all that's in my town... I'll be filing it with 91 or 93 here soon to see if I can feel a difference.... I have exhaust, long tubes, cold air, intake manifold, 3.73 s etc.... not sure if I have a stock tune. Could I have been hurting my car?.... I am throwing codes for heater o2s and system lean banks.... but I averaged 24 mpg last time I filled up but I didn't get on it much. Btw I'm in a auto 2000 trans am
#31
TECH Fanatic
Holy **** guys. .. I wish I would have known this. I have ran my cat hard and all I put in mine is 87 or 89... that's all that's in my town... I'll be filing it with 91 or 93 here soon to see if I can feel a difference.... I have exhaust, long tubes, cold air, intake manifold, 3.73 s etc.... not sure if I have a stock tune. Could I have been hurting my car?.... I am throwing codes for heater o2s and system lean banks.... but I averaged 24 mpg last time I filled up but I didn't get on it much. Btw I'm in a auto 2000 trans am
#32
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,319
Likes: 0
Received 1,756 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Seems like a waste to store specific 89 octane fuel since so few applications call for it. In fact, I've only ever used it in my lawn equipment as it seems to make those engines run a bit better. I've never owned a car that needed anything but regular 87 or 91+ premium.
#33
TECH Fanatic
It's interesting that you can only get 87 or 89, I didn't know that they shipped specific "89" octane fuel. I thought all stations just had low grade (87) and high grade (91 or 93) octane tanks and then the pump would mix them to achieve mid-grade (89) when selected.
Seems like a waste to store specific 89 octane fuel since so few applications call for it. In fact, I've only ever used it in my lawn equipment as it seems to make those engines run a bit better. I've never owned a car that needed anything but regular 87 or 91+ premium.
Seems like a waste to store specific 89 octane fuel since so few applications call for it. In fact, I've only ever used it in my lawn equipment as it seems to make those engines run a bit better. I've never owned a car that needed anything but regular 87 or 91+ premium.
Last edited by Fry_; 12-18-2014 at 05:04 PM.
#34
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 12,604
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
The 87 octane will ping and drive knock-learning spark
advance toward the low octane table. It will take some
time to crawl back out of that hole. Even Shell V-power
93 made my car ping once I had it tuned up tight to a
decent (BP, Chevron, Sunoco) 93.
I'm not convinced that you couldn't get the LS1 to run
OK on 87. In fact I wonder if it might run better at high
RPM with less octane (when suitably tuned) because
you need the fat slow burn for torque and anti-ping
but slow burn isn't so great for high RPM. You see
people leaning out the top end fueling for this, so....
But I've never seen anyone take the time to try and
do it right. Maybe because the consequences of
failure can be severe.
advance toward the low octane table. It will take some
time to crawl back out of that hole. Even Shell V-power
93 made my car ping once I had it tuned up tight to a
decent (BP, Chevron, Sunoco) 93.
I'm not convinced that you couldn't get the LS1 to run
OK on 87. In fact I wonder if it might run better at high
RPM with less octane (when suitably tuned) because
you need the fat slow burn for torque and anti-ping
but slow burn isn't so great for high RPM. You see
people leaning out the top end fueling for this, so....
But I've never seen anyone take the time to try and
do it right. Maybe because the consequences of
failure can be severe.
#35
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Most octane boost additives are crap, I carry a can of this with me if I'm travelling somewhere that may not have stations carrying 93 octane.
http://torcoracefuel.net/pro-accelerator.html
http://torcoracefuel.net/pro-accelerator.html
#36
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
in response to post #34 by 'jimmyblue' of his 2nd & 3rd paragraphs.
My engine is stock except for SLP CAI and StainlessWorks catback system(they used my car for prototyping so I got the system and installation very inexpensively).The Stainless system did nothing for the 1/4(same times before and after). But to the point. I'm approaching 190,000 miles and use 87 octane since I got it at 30,000 miles. The 1st Sunday in august over the years,Thompson Drag Raceway would have GM vs Ford day. I always participated with the local group but only do the test and tune session runs. I would always start using 93 for about a week before the event. One time I didn't change over to 93 and ran with 87. Best times ever ! Looking back that day,the only change was not using 93. So for the following 5 years I tested. 93,87,93,87,93. Always turned better times and felt stronger with 87. As far as using 93 for about a week previous to racing,Scott Settlemire,F-bod godfather,said it wasn't necessary as the computer makes immediate changes as required,that's what the computer's for. I've come to the conclusion that a gallon of 87 contains more combustible fuel compared to a gallon of 93 where some of that combustible fuel is replaced the flame retardant additives. Let the 'flaming' start,I don't care as I know what my Z runs best with and with 190,000 miles 87 hasn't 'hurt' it.
My engine is stock except for SLP CAI and StainlessWorks catback system(they used my car for prototyping so I got the system and installation very inexpensively).The Stainless system did nothing for the 1/4(same times before and after). But to the point. I'm approaching 190,000 miles and use 87 octane since I got it at 30,000 miles. The 1st Sunday in august over the years,Thompson Drag Raceway would have GM vs Ford day. I always participated with the local group but only do the test and tune session runs. I would always start using 93 for about a week before the event. One time I didn't change over to 93 and ran with 87. Best times ever ! Looking back that day,the only change was not using 93. So for the following 5 years I tested. 93,87,93,87,93. Always turned better times and felt stronger with 87. As far as using 93 for about a week previous to racing,Scott Settlemire,F-bod godfather,said it wasn't necessary as the computer makes immediate changes as required,that's what the computer's for. I've come to the conclusion that a gallon of 87 contains more combustible fuel compared to a gallon of 93 where some of that combustible fuel is replaced the flame retardant additives. Let the 'flaming' start,I don't care as I know what my Z runs best with and with 190,000 miles 87 hasn't 'hurt' it.
#37
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,319
Likes: 0
Received 1,756 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
in response to post #34 by 'jimmyblue' of his 2nd & 3rd paragraphs.
My engine is stock except for SLP CAI and StainlessWorks catback system(they used my car for prototyping so I got the system and installation very inexpensively).The Stainless system did nothing for the 1/4(same times before and after). But to the point. I'm approaching 190,000 miles and use 87 octane since I got it at 30,000 miles. The 1st Sunday in august over the years,Thompson Drag Raceway would have GM vs Ford day. I always participated with the local group but only do the test and tune session runs. I would always start using 93 for about a week before the event. One time I didn't change over to 93 and ran with 87. Best times ever ! Looking back that day,the only change was not using 93. So for the following 5 years I tested. 93,87,93,87,93. Always turned better times and felt stronger with 87. As far as using 93 for about a week previous to racing,Scott Settlemire,F-bod godfather,said it wasn't necessary as the computer makes immediate changes as required,that's what the computer's for. I've come to the conclusion that a gallon of 87 contains more combustible fuel compared to a gallon of 93 where some of that combustible fuel is replaced the flame retardant additives. Let the 'flaming' start,I don't care as I know what my Z runs best with and with 190,000 miles 87 hasn't 'hurt' it.
My engine is stock except for SLP CAI and StainlessWorks catback system(they used my car for prototyping so I got the system and installation very inexpensively).The Stainless system did nothing for the 1/4(same times before and after). But to the point. I'm approaching 190,000 miles and use 87 octane since I got it at 30,000 miles. The 1st Sunday in august over the years,Thompson Drag Raceway would have GM vs Ford day. I always participated with the local group but only do the test and tune session runs. I would always start using 93 for about a week before the event. One time I didn't change over to 93 and ran with 87. Best times ever ! Looking back that day,the only change was not using 93. So for the following 5 years I tested. 93,87,93,87,93. Always turned better times and felt stronger with 87. As far as using 93 for about a week previous to racing,Scott Settlemire,F-bod godfather,said it wasn't necessary as the computer makes immediate changes as required,that's what the computer's for. I've come to the conclusion that a gallon of 87 contains more combustible fuel compared to a gallon of 93 where some of that combustible fuel is replaced the flame retardant additives. Let the 'flaming' start,I don't care as I know what my Z runs best with and with 190,000 miles 87 hasn't 'hurt' it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you'll always be fastest when using the lowest octane possible that still 100% resists detonation. If your setup is such (A/F, timing, compression, intake temp) that you get no detonation on 87, then there is not going be anything to gain with a switch to 93 (if fact you will lose performance, as you've seen) with all else being equal. Having said that, if you are getting no detonation at all on 87 octane with a stock compression LS1, then you could likely lean your mixture and/or bump timing a bit for a noticeable increase in performance while using 91+ octane.
#38
Pontiacerator
iTrader: (12)
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you'll always be fastest when using the lowest octane possible that still 100% resists detonation. If your setup is such (A/F, timing, compression, intake temp) that you get no detonation on 87, then there is not going be anything to gain with a switch to 93 (if fact you will lose performance, as you've seen) with all else being equal. Having said that, if you are getting no detonation at all on 87 octane with a stock compression LS1, then you could likely lean your mixture and/or bump timing a bit for a noticeable increase in performance while using 91+ octane.