# which grade of gas are you using?



## bduffey723 (Apr 30, 2012)

I use 93 always because compared to 87 and 89 it drives noticeably better and has better fuel economy. First started using premium fuel with the Camaro and never turned back.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I've experimented with 87, but the car doesn't like it a whole lot once temps get warmer outside. It bogs from a standstill quite a bit with the AC on. I have found that it likes 87 from the Exxon up the road, but other times I've tried it, it ran like complete crap on other brands. Hesitation was seriously bad. 

I usually use 89 octane and feel that my (untuned) Cruze performs just fine on it, or in the peak of summer when it's 90-100 out, I'll use 93. Same reason...that bogging with the AC on is due to timing being pulled because of pre-detonation. It can be downright dangerous trying to pull out into an intersection and the car just won't respond like it normally does.

For me, there is no noticable MPG difference between 89 and 93, but there is a ~4 highway MPG difference between those crummy 87 tanks and 89.


----------



## springer64 (May 14, 2013)

strictly 87 because it's cheaper. 13 eco 1.4 auto ran 122 mph by gps with a bit left on 87. i'd say that's good enough dead stock. oh and the manual says 87 or higher, then goes on to talk about knocking. no knocking on 87 here.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

93 octane*.

*: Tuned, so I have to run premium, and premium around me is 93 octane.


----------



## Jnoobs (Nov 22, 2012)

E-85 all day!:th_coolio:


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

Well I used to put 87 octane in my 05 cavalier when I had it 2 years ago and I noticed it helped the mpg a little. Not by much but it did. I was going to fill my car up today with the 87 octane but then I was thinking.."Im not sure how well it will run for sure or if my mpg will increase or decrease". Can anyone tell me with their knowledge and/or experience, in comparison, which fuel burns the best to get better fuel economy? I want to see how much more mpg I can get out of my LT. I think right now, im getting 38-39 mpg going right at the speed limit=]


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

sciphi said:


> 93 octane*.
> 
> *: Tuned, so I have to run premium, and premium around me is 93 octane.


I think all we have around here in iowa is octanes 87, 89, and 91. Havent came across any 93 yet


----------



## Cruzeplav23 (May 24, 2013)

I just filled up today with 93, first time so I'm ready to see how she'll do


----------



## vulpinethrone31 (Aug 26, 2012)

93 and I am tuned along with offsetting the hot SC summers


----------



## bduffey723 (Apr 30, 2012)

chevycruze2012 said:


> I think all we have around here in iowa is octanes 87, 89, and 91. Havent came across any 93 yet


Around me, North Western Indiana, certain gas stations have 91 and the others have 93. Marathon, Luke, and Family Express has 91 where Speedway and Pilot have 93. Maybe try a different station? Really tho it's a negligible figure.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

chevycruze2012 said:


> Well I used to put 87 octane in my 05 cavalier when I had it 2 years ago and I noticed it helped the mpg a little. Not by much but it did. I was going to fill my car up today with the 87 octane but then I was thinking.."Im not sure how well it will run for sure or if my mpg will increase or decrease". Can anyone tell me with their knowledge and/or experience, in comparison, which fuel burns the best to get better fuel economy? I want to see how much more mpg I can get out of my LT. I think right now, im getting 38-39 mpg going right at the speed limit=]


Try a tank of each on your car and see how it does. It mostly depends on your driving...I'm a bit heavy-footed and so I'm sure I'm throwing away MPG on 87. The car feels a bit slower, so I push it a bit harder. If you drive conservatively all the time, there may not be a difference.

Turbo engines aren't a fan of low octane gas, so they pull timing and decrease power when they detect knock. This happens often on the Cruze - you can often feel little "pulses" in power between 2000-3000 RPM. Every time that happens, you're throwing away power/MPG.

87 octane does contain slightly *more* power per unit than higher octanes, BUT it has less knock resistance. For engines such as your Cavalier that do not benefit from higher octane by increasing timing advance, they will get the best MPG on 87 since they able to use the engine's full potential on that gas.

93 octane doesn't give you more power persay, but it lets higher-performance engines run closer to their maximum potential by not pre-igniting.


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

Yeah for sure...I usually only go to one gas station here in iowa...It makes it less convenient since im picky lol. I go ot Phillips 66. Idk why I only choose that...I guess its because I notice a the car run better on their 89 octane than places like caseys or kum n go gas. So now I only go to Phillips 66 =]. Anyone have a Phillips 66?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Anyone have a Phillips 66?


Haven't seen those since the 1990's!


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

what??lol. Are you serious? That's insane. I know there isn't a whole lot of them around, but dang. I would of thought you guys would of come across one. What ironic about this gas station is here in Knoxville at mine for a gallon of 89 octane its 3.79 as of right now...in a town about 2 hours away north of me is another Phillips 66 and their gas for 89 octane ethanol is 3.49 a gallon. I think its apart of the casino and Indians own it so that would make perfect sense because Indians don't pay taxes lol.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

If I go an hour south, gas prices drop by 30 cents/gallon.

The joys of living near a big city...


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I experimented with 85, 87, 89, and 91 (Denver altitude allows many cars to run a lower octane than the rating). I ended up running 91 octane in both my ECO MT and LS. Both cars simply drive much better on 91 octane.


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

Im afraid to ask what anyone else is paying for gas lol. Probably better than me


----------



## bduffey723 (Apr 30, 2012)

chevycruze2012 said:


> Im afraid to ask what anyone else is paying for gas lol. Probably better than me


Filled up in Gary Indiana 3 days ago for 3.98/gal. Premium. Lowest they have been in awhile.


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

holy crap. I guess I do have it better to others lol. Hopefully at some point in time, these outrageous gas prices do down a lot more and stay down. This is BS. As long as I have a fuel efficient car, I wont complain too much. All I know is this 3.00 plus is stupid and got old quick lol.


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

I use top tier conaco/phillips 87 non ethanol and I average 50mpg actual every month. If I could get my hands on a top tier 91 non ethanol pump I would use it. But for now im completely satisfied with the results of 87 knowing my car is getting great mpg and im not putting ethanol into my engine.


----------



## springer64 (May 14, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Try a tank of each on your car and see how it does. It mostly depends on your driving...I'm a bit heavy-footed and so I'm sure I'm throwing away MPG on 87. The car feels a bit slower, so I push it a bit harder. If you drive conservatively all the time, there may not be a difference.
> 
> Turbo engines aren't a fan of low octane gas, so they pull timing and decrease power when they detect knock. This happens often on the Cruze - you can often feel little "pulses" in power between 2000-3000 RPM. Every time that happens, you're throwing away power/MPG.
> 
> ...


i've felt those pulses a couple times so i might give 89 a try sometime. 

actually 93 might give more power. if it can let the motor run max timing and if that max timing is at mbt - max brake timing. mbt would be max timing for best hp on a dyno. so if the ecu allows this much timing with high octane fuel then you should get more power. if the ecu never allows mbt the higher octane may still help as the ecu won't pull timing as much if at all.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

My car runs the best on 93 octane with 10% ethanol, but I get my best gas mileage with 91 octane with no ethanol. Around here you really have to look for the 93 octane stations, most only have 91 octane as their premium grade. 

I started marking all the local ones in my Nuvi, within 6months I already lost one(station switched to 91 octane no ethanol). I find I get 2-6mpg better with no ethanol gas(depending on % city and speed driven on the hwy), all my tanks with over 40mpg have been with no ethanol gas. 

Highest I have got on 93octane with 10% is 38.9mpg with the cruise set at 68mph. In similar weather and also cruise at 68mph on 91 octane no ethanol I managed 43.3mpg. Both were 100% hwy trips of over 250miles.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Manual says only to use top tier gas, since alcohol and gasoline does not bind chemically, avoid that like the plague. Difference in price between ethanol 87 and ethanol free 91 octane used to be twenty cents. now closer to a half a buck. 

Already got a bad mix with just the low octane gas.

Don't like it, but would no way add ethanol to my Cruze or any other vehicle than I would pour ethanol down my grandsons throat.

Another disadvantage of ethanol they don't tell you about is buying a gallon of milk, a pound of cheese or hamburger are pure luxury items now. But I gather enough people haven't figured that out yet.


----------



## RollinOn18s (Mar 28, 2013)

When I bought my car I got a 500$ gas card to Petro Canada. In Canada it is top 3 in stations. I filled up with 94 octane from there and after it ran out I have been using shell 91 vpower. The difference between the two on mpg's or performance. 
My reasoning for using these is it has only seen 91+ octane and I am going to tune it. I don't know how it runs on 87 but , it runs perfect on 91. 

And as for price you pay. I would kill for that, for shell 91 I paid the equivalent to 5.85 a gallon we get gas by the litre and pay from 140-145 per litre for 91.


----------



## Dark Matter (May 16, 2012)

Have run several tanks of 93 in my 1LT with no detectable effect on performance. I bought this car for economy and I happily use 87 and pocket the difference.


----------



## cruze01 (Mar 25, 2011)

obermd said:


> I experimented with 85, 87, 89, and 91 (Denver altitude allows many cars to run a lower octane than the rating). I ended up running 91 octane in both my ECO MT and LS. Both cars simply drive much better on 91 octane.


Agree totaly! I know many people say you're wasting your money and that it realy makes no diferance but for me and my Cruze we will use premium!


----------



## TMcDermid (Mar 30, 2013)

I run 94 and Arianna loves me for it! I will settle with 91 if I can find 94 but I do notice a difference.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> 93 octane*.
> 
> *: Tuned, so I have to run premium, and premium around me is 93 octane.


 Same here. Also before I was tuned - switched to 93 as it helped with throttle response during high ambient temps and A/C on.


----------



## jdubb11 (Mar 14, 2012)

my car will pulsate on 87 so ive been using 89 with little to no pulsating. a/c use is when the pulsating was most problematic on 87.


----------



## chevycruze2012 (Nov 13, 2012)

I use 89 ethanol simply because its cheaper....not that I couldn't pay another 10 cents a gallon for the 87 octane, I just am so use to using 89. I have used it quite a few times when I had my 2005 cavalier like I mentioned earlier in this thread=]. I got acceptional gas mileage with 87 I thought. The car ran fine. Only thing now is id like to run 87 in mine but im not sure how well its going to run. I don't want it running like **** that's for sure. I have the 1.4L turbo...so if anyone has the same engine which I know a lot of cruzes do, can you tell me what works good for you based off your experiments? Worse case ill just keep using 89 ethanol. Some of you may not know this, but all 89 ethanol gas is made here in iowa from our local corn. When you pull up to the station next time, look at the 89 gas sticker......If it has a picture of a corn stock on it, that was made here in Iowa =]. I never had a problem with this gas ever, and only difference is the mpg difference between 89 and the other octane ratings and/or whatever else the differences are.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

91+ Phillips 66 mainly until I went to Ohio and used Sunoco 93.


----------



## xczar (May 19, 2013)

CruzeEcoBlueTopaz said:


> I use top tier conaco/phillips 87 non ethanol and I average 50mpg actual every month........... QUOTE]
> 
> 
> OK, I`ll bite. What are you getting when you go back up the hill?
> ...


----------



## CruzeEcoBlueTopaz (Jan 5, 2012)

This is my monthly mpg average report for the past year. http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-fuel-economy/13400-monthly-avg-mpg-log.html

Im currently at a 49mpg average over the past 120k miles. 

Now I have used higher octanes and I am unable to notice a difference in mpg or performance. As I said I use 87 non ethanol and im still able to average 50mpg or more. The only difference in mpg I notice is caused by the weather which changes everyday.

As for performance the cruze MT gives me the acceleration I demand in 3rd and 4th gear.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

xczar said:


> I have a 2013 ECO auto. Sticker is 38 hwy. And as I recall the manual was 42 hwy. I drive 160 miles a day in NE Pennsylvania in semi hilly roads, mostly hwy. I get about 33 MPG`s using 87.


Your car is rated at 39mpg hwy(38 is the regular automatic). What was your speed on the highway? anything over 70mph the turbo/auto MPG really drops. at 75MPH I get 32mpg. Really need to drive about 90% hwy in the 45-70mph range to get closer to your window sticker numbers. 

Try filling up before you get on the hwy and as a soon as you ramp off, that way you can test different speeds to see where your sweet spot is. With my 1LT automatic with the RS package 68mph gets 39+ MPG on no ethanol 91 octane. 


*EVERYONE HERE* running 87 octane should keep track of your cost per mile, even though premium cost more the cost per mile is the same or slightly less because I gain 2-4mpg on my monthly average. You get the added bonus of better throttle response and from what I have seen more power when you need it.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

CruzeEcoBlueTopaz said:


> I have a hard time beliving other drivers able to notice a difference between 87 and 91. If any driver asked me to fillup their cruze I find it difficult to believe anyone would be able to know for certain which octane I put in their car. Same goes for conventional oil vs synthetic or new transmission fluid. I have a hard time beliving anyone would know the difference for certain. Im not tryin to get anyone upset or offend anyone but thats just my opinion so who cares right.


I find I get 2-6mpg better with no ethanol gas, however I only ever buy the 91octane no ethanol(though last fill up I bought 89 octane no ethanol). 

My automatic cruze runs like compete crap on 87 octane. Trying to cross a 4 lane hwy was like driving a golf cart.... hit the gas nothing, nothing, nothing.... vrooom! Maybe with the manual you don't notice the detuned power curve, with the automatic you sure do. With 89, 91 or even better 93 octane the car runs like a top.


----------



## 2013Cruze (Aug 4, 2012)

91 octane shell.


----------



## XtremeAaron (Jan 22, 2012)

I only run Shell 93. I am untuned btw.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jdubb11 said:


> my car will pulsate on 87 so ive been using 89 with little to no pulsating. a/c use is when the pulsating was most problematic on 87.


Welcome to the wonderful world of Knock Retard. The ECU is pulling the timing to avoid engine knocking and you feel it as pulses in the throttle. This also causes the car to waste fuel by burning it at a non-optimal point in the cylinder/piston cycle. Increasing the octane until the pulsing is gone will boost fuel efficiency and throttle responsiveness.


----------



## jdubb11 (Mar 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> Welcome to the wonderful world of Knock Retard. The ECU is pulling the timing to avoid engine knocking and you feel it as pulses in the throttle. This also causes the car to waste fuel by burning it at a non-optimal point in the cylinder/piston cycle. Increasing the octane until the pulsing is gone will boost fuel efficiency and throttle responsiveness.


yup that pulsating in my brand new car sure was annoying. im glad a saw a thread about this last summer. that is when i switched to 89 with much better results. im lucky in that the station i always go to has 89 at the same price or only 5 cents more then 87. then you throw in the 10 cents off a gallon coupon i use everytime i fill up... ill take 1.00-1.20 off every fill up. =D


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Question for those of you living in the flat parts of the US. For driving across Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana on I-70 in an ECO MT, what octane would you recommend? Basically I'm going to be sitting on Cruze control for hours on end. Central Missouri is hilly enough that I'll run 91 or higher depending on what's available. Northeast of Columbus, Ohio I'll run 91 or higher to handle the hills of the Appalachian mountains.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> Question for those of you living in the flat parts of the US. For driving across Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana on I-70 in an ECO MT, what octane would you recommend? Basically I'm going to be sitting on Cruze control for hours on end. Central Missouri is hilly enough that I'll run 91 or higher depending on what's available. Northeast of Columbus, Ohio I'll run 91 or higher to handle the hills of the Appalachian mountains.


It does perfectly fine on 89 at lower elevations with no hills. Heck, even with hills, it does fine @ 3000 ft.

Course...depends how hot it is when you make the trip. If it's above 90, I step up to premium. Other than that, gas is over $4 here for premium and I refuse to pay that.


----------



## bduffey723 (Apr 30, 2012)

obermd said:


> Question for those of you living in the flat parts of the US. For driving across Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana on I-70 in an ECO MT, what octane would you recommend? Basically I'm going to be sitting on Cruze control for hours on end. Central Missouri is hilly enough that I'll run 91 or higher depending on what's available. Northeast of Columbus, Ohio I'll run 91 or higher to handle the hills of the Appalachian mountains.


Midgrade should be more than fine for that. The heat isn't too bad yet for this area to bump it up to premium. I don't ever recommend regular. Always midgrade at least. Just beware of Illinois drivers. They think the left lane on the highway is for going just the posted speed limit and that's it. Regional tractor drivers from this area feel like lane signalling is not needed as well. Oh, and fill up before crossing the into Illinios. The gas instantly gets higher right over the border.


----------



## nebojsa (Jan 3, 2011)

I thought that the only difference between the regular and premium is the octane amount, plus the price. The older cars,if you get engine knock you go to premium.
I think that today's cars more/less don't have that knok problem ,but that is me.Regular gas or premium gas, they both have the same amount of heat energy...don't they ?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Slightly less in premium. Not a huge difference in BTUs. Usually premium contains a higher % ethanol, which helps to reduce knock. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

nebojsa said:


> I thought that the only difference between the regular and premium is the octane amount, plus the price. The older cars,if you get engine knock you go to premium.
> I think that today's cars more/less don't have that knok problem ,but that is me.Regular gas or premium gas, they both have the same amount of heat energy...don't they ?


Depends on if both grades have 10% ethanol. Around me most stations premium is 91 octane no ethanol, so it actually has a few thousand more BTU per gallon. 

You are also overlooking the high heat of a turbo engine, in the past ALL turbo engines required premium gas. The only thing that changed is they now are relying on the knock sensor and ECU to hopefully quickly enough adjust ignition timing to prevent engine damage. This means with 87 octane the engine is constantly de-tuning itself so you loose MPG and power.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Depends on if both grades have 10% ethanol. Around me most stations premium is 91 octane no ethanol, so it actually has a few thousand more BTU per gallon.


Ah...it's UP TO 10%. Regular is more like 5-7%, while premium is 10% in most places. 




Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

According to the link below summer gas with no ethanol contains 114,500BTU. Ethanol gas contains 111,836. That's 2,664BTU extra energy per gallon running pure gas. 

2,664BTU X 15.6gallons(size of my 1LT tank)= 41,558.4BTU extra per tank. That's only equal to less than a 1/2 gallon extra energy. 

Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Ah...it's UP TO 10%. Regular is more like 5-7%, while premium is 10% in most places.



Is that what the pumps say where you live? Wisconsin has a strict labeling policy and all grades that contain ethanol say "contains 10% ethanol per gallon". The only questionable wording at the pump is on octane.... if I buy 91octane in fine print is says "91 octane minimum", meaning if could be higher. all grades say something similar.


----------



## tecollins1 (Nov 6, 2011)

93 
Ussually Sunoco (since it has a very large market in PA -headquarters in Philly-)

The other popular gas stations are "Sheetz" and "Get Go" (who knows where they get their gas from)


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

springer64 said:


> strictly 87 because it's cheaper. 13 eco 1.4 auto ran 122 mph by gps with a bit left on 87. i'd say that's good enough dead stock. oh and the manual says 87 or higher, then goes on to talk about knocking. no knocking on 87 here.


I have not found any benefit to anything higher. I am not tuned and the car runs fine with 87. Why waste the money. I wasted enough on my tuned 1.8. The req. use of 93 in the 1.8 was _one reason_ I am glad it is gone!


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

87 winter, 89 summer.

Rob


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

In Denver 85 is "regular" due to altitude. Lower air pressure reduces the chance of engine knock. Until I purchased my ECO MT 85 ran fine in every car I owned. My ECO MT requires 91 for throttle smoothness, especially in the summer. In the winter I can get away with 89 but even in the cooler temperatures I still notice throttle pulsing on 89. Penguin LS also runs noticeably better on 91 octane vs. 85, 87, and 89 octane so it also runs 91 octane.


----------



## coastlvr (May 24, 2013)

I have been using 87 in my 2011 Cruze LTZ, but i am nearly convin ced i will have to use at least 89 & possibly 91 octane to obtain any decent gas mileage.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

cruze01 said:


> Agree totaly! I know many people say you're wasting your money and that it realy makes no diferance but for me and my Cruze we will use premium!


For most cars you are wasting money running higher octane than needed. Even with the Cruze some of our members have discovered that mid-grade is sufficient so they would be wasting money going to premium.


----------



## Rbk_3 (Apr 14, 2013)

91 because its the only ethanol free I can get here


----------



## RedneckCamokid (Apr 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Haven't seen those since the 1990's!


Got one in town! Popular little stop, but mostly I go to Circle K for my gas. 91 or 93, depending on where I go.


----------



## jandree22 (Sep 19, 2011)

Bringing this thread back up because I did a little math for my experience. Crunched the numbers from my Fuelly log eliminating the outliers (first fuel up, pure highway trips, etc) to try and get the most accurate picture of my typical commute routine. My sample size is still admittedly small, but when comparing 89 tanks to 92/93 tanks, I found:

92/93 --- 37.47 mpg (15 tanks)
89 --- 37.45 mpg (6 tanks)

Most of the 89 tanks were Feb-March, so on the one hand still on winter blend fuel and cold ambient temps, but on the other hand I wasn’t up against extreme summer heat/AC usage. The basic idea is the mpgs are nearly identical IME so far. Around here most midgrade is only $.10 more than 87, while premium is $.30-.40 more than 87... so the financial end is really tipping towards midgrade. I have been a proponent of using premium but 89 is really, really close in performance and now evidently mpgs as well. Will go back to 89 for a while and see how things pan out in the summer heat.


----------

