# octane rating required for 1.4T?



## Dyver (Jul 17, 2013)

What octane rating do users here go with? 1.4T auto. The owners manual says regular but have heard all kinds of opinions on it. Any thoughts would be great.


----------



## APCruze (Mar 7, 2013)

The best thing is to try a few tanks of each, I used 87 the first 5500 miles and tried 93 one day on a highway trip. I noticed it smoothed out a lot and a very small MPG gain, ( weather in the 90's with high humidity) so I will keep using 93 at least for the summer,


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

You can find dozens of threads about this.

Basically, 87 octane is _*required*_ for your engine. Premium fuel (91+) is _*recommended*_ through general consensus. You will pick up some smoothness and power, especially in the hot summer months.


----------



## Dragonsys (May 27, 2013)

87 works fine, but with 91+ you will get a smoother (less knock) run, a little more power, a little better MPG, and a few other "enhancements". FI engines run better on higher octane, but on the 1.4T Cruze it is not required


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The 1.4T engine is actually rated for 91 octane. The ECU uses aggressive anti-knock detection to protect the engine from 87 octane. This is why the car will run on 87 but runs better on 91 or 93.


----------



## newsguy99 (May 24, 2013)

it actually runs rather well on the mid grade gas as well, 89 octane.. But, as others have said, you will see increase in smoothness, mpg, and a little more power.. Just when you need to hit GO from a stoplight from a steep hill... 87 will studder, unless you gunned it before letting your foot off the break... 91 or 93, you'll just start up the hill normally, without having to gun it, to go up the hill..


----------



## Hack (Jul 10, 2013)

I use 93 octane always.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

One only needs to use 87 octane, but the motor runs much smoother and seems to have more power with premium. Most also notice an increase in MPG with premium(especially in the summer heat).


----------



## 99_XC600 (Feb 24, 2013)

Just use the 93 Octane. The savings that you achieve for the overall mileage for the car offsets the $2.50 premium per tank.

It will will run on 87 but honestly you're going to think something is wrong with the car.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

99_XC600 said:


> Just use the 93 Octane. The savings that you achieve for the overall mileage for the car offsets the $2.50 premium per tank.
> 
> It will will run on 87 but honestly you're going to think something is wrong with the car.


False.

The requirement is 87 Octane. Everything else depends on climate and driving style.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

It'll run on 87 but it's unhappy when hot and running the AC too. 

Honestly, 93 is a waste of money on the stock tune (especially at prices here) when it runs just fine most of the year on 89 octane. 

Make sure to check the gap on your plugs. The Cruze runs like poop at low RPM if the gaps are below .028". 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Two things I've learned to never discuss are Religion and octane requirements.


----------



## Sic81 (Aug 16, 2013)

I havent tried 93 yet but my car definitely hates 87


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

If the car hated 87 octane so much, I don't think GM would warranty it for 100,000 miles worth of 87 octane use.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> If the car hated 87 octane so much, I don't think GM would warranty it for 100,000 miles worth of 87 octane use.


Sure they would! Who said running 87 octane damages your engine? The issue isn't engine damage. The issue is how the car responds to heavy loads, heat soak, and high IATs at the manifold.

The car will run, but it won't run as well. This has been beaten to death a dozen times here. Do what you guys want to but realize that this engine runs better and returns better fuel economy on higher octane fuels. The #1 reason why 87 octane is an option is because the mass uneducated public would be turned off by seeing an economy car that requires premium fuel, even if it achieved over 40mpg. 

Those of you who don't throw a hissy fit over $3 on a $40 tank of gas will have a smoother revving engine that achieves better fuel economy and experiences far less hesitation under high heat and AC use.

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Those of you who don't throw a hissy fit over $3 on a $40 tank of gas will have a smoother revving engine that achieves better fuel economy and experiences far less hesitation under high heat and AC use.


This is the same reason Lexus re-designed (reprogrammed the ECU) for their V6 to run on regular. Owners/potential owners were throwing a hissy fit about the "91 octane" recommendation.

What it all boils down to...a high compression ratio engine (especially a turbo) NEEDS high(er) octane fuel (unless you have direct injection) to run at its full potential.


----------



## ChevyMgr (Oct 27, 2010)

Dyver said:


> What octane rating do users here go with? 1.4T auto. The owners manual says regular but have heard all kinds of opinions on it. Any thoughts would be great.


There is truth in a lot of the prior posts, but not all. From the owners manual:
Recommended Fuel 
Use regular unleaded gasoline with a posted octane rating of 87 or higher. If the octane rating is less than 87, an audible knocking noise may be heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher as soon as possible. If heavy knocking is heard when using gasoline with a higher octane rating, the engine needs service.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyMgr said:


> There is truth in a lot of the prior posts, but not all. From the owners manual:
> Recommended Fuel
> Use regular unleaded gasoline with a posted *octane rating of 87 or higher*. If the octane rating is less than 87, an audible knocking noise may be heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher as soon as possible. If heavy knocking is heard when using gasoline with a higher octane rating, the engine needs service.


"87 or higher" is key. In fact, Chevrolet UK actually puts on their web site that higher octane may help the car's fuel economy.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Sure they would! Who said running 87 octane damages your engine? The issue isn't engine damage. The issue is how the car responds to heavy loads, heat soak, and high IATs at the manifold.


In the very steep hill grades of some of my state & county highways(9-12% grades), on 87 octane I would get the surging feeling some mention, if 85+ degrees out I would sometimes get what sounded like really bad spark blowout(loud clicking and followed by reduced power).

89 octane is the minimum I can run in these hills with minimal surging & no knock. Sure on 87 once knock is detected it detunes itself to protect from engine damage, as bad as it sounds/feels when this happened I would never want to rely on the knock sensor when all I need to do is use higher octane gas. 

Most of the time I run 91 of 93 octane premium, however the last couple tanks I have been running 89 E10 bought from a local ethanol plant, cost 15cents less than regular 87 at most stores & the car seems to love it. I suppose since ethanol gas has a 3 month shelf life getting it from the source helps ensure I am getting good gas.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Sure they would! Who said running 87 octane damages your engine? The issue isn't engine damage. The issue is how the car responds to heavy loads, heat soak, and high IATs at the manifold.
> 
> The car will run, but it won't run as well. This has been beaten to death a dozen times here. Do what you guys want to but realize that this engine runs better and returns better fuel economy on higher octane fuels. The #1 reason why 87 octane is an option is because the mass uneducated public would be turned off by seeing an economy car that requires premium fuel, even if it achieved over 40mpg.
> 
> ...






Where oh where would the Mass uneducated Masses , ( sheeple ) find such quality Education to inform them of the many aspects of utilizing a Higher Octane Fuel , petrol , Ethanol Mixture Blend that has a Life Span of 3 Months or there about . Give or take +_ 15 cents ..




HERE ! --- how is that Maintenance Schedules coming along ?


----------



## hificruzer226 (Mar 27, 2013)

I only put 93+ in mine because its only like $3.50 extra for cleaner heads better mpg and hp (even though its not that noticeable)


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Octane has nothing to do with a cleaner engine. 

That's all about where you buy the gas from and what additives they use. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## hificruzer226 (Mar 27, 2013)

ok correction after some research (5 min) I stand corrected

[h=3]Will higher octane gasoline clean your engine better?[/h]No, as a rule, high octane gasoline doesn’t outperform regular octane in preventing engine deposits from forming, in removing them, or in cleaning your car's engine. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that all octane grades of all brands of gasoline contain engine cleaning detergent additives to protect against the build-up of harmful levels of engine deposits during the expected life of your car.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

hificruzer226 said:


> I only put 93+ in mine because its only like $3.50 extra for cleaner heads better mpg and hp (even though its not that noticeable)


Keep in mind that the power of this engine is limited by the PCM as a function of torque. If the higher octane fuel allows you to advance timing, you will be able to get more power with less boost, but your peak power will still be limited by the maximum torque specified in the PCM. 

In effect, running higher octane fuel allows your car to run more efficiently, and allows your turbo to provide the same power with a marginally lower level of boost at WOT.


----------



## hificruzer226 (Mar 27, 2013)

jiminy cricket anyone else want to tell me im partially wrong??? lol


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

hificruzer226 said:


> jiminy cricket anyone else want to tell me im partially wrong??? lol


I will say you are partially correct, at most gas stations(not just top tier) higher octane fuel does indeed contain more fuel additives(detergent) so technically higher octane does keep you engine cleaner.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Anything that provides a cleaner and hotter burn will also help keep the cylinder ignition system (spark plugs in particular) cleaner, which means there is some grain of truth to the thought that higher octane will clean the engine. However, the bulk of the cleaning is done by the added detergents found in gasoline.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

obermd said:


> Anything that provides a cleaner and hotter burn will also help keep the cylinder ignition system (spark plugs in particular) cleaner, which means there is some grain of truth to the thought that higher octane will clean the engine. However, the bulk of the cleaning is done by the added detergents found in gasoline.


Another recommended method of cleaning the internals of your engine is the Italian Tuneup.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Like others have said, it will run on 87, and run better on higher octane. Experiment for 3 tanks on each, and see what effect it has. Personally, I have run 91+ octane since early in the car's life, when I did this same experiment with 87 and 93 octane gas.


----------



## Atomic (Nov 5, 2011)

If you choose to run 87, you are doing yourself a major disservice. The car is completely different on 93 octane; gets better fuel economy and is far more responsive.


----------



## jsnowbordr47 (Aug 10, 2013)

When I first got mine I was using Costco regular gas. I then took a trip to Riverside, Ca, that weekend the temperature was generally 104, but at some points it was 112 degrees. I had some catastophic turbo lag. It was so bad that I felt it was a safety issue, especially getting on the freeway. After some google searches, I decided to try top tier premium, I haven't gone back since. When I drove down to Riverside I averaged 35.5mpg. On the trip back up after switching, I had a 38mpg average. 

I can't comment on power gains, but the turbo lag during hot weather is helped out quite a bit by switching fuels. And seeing as how over the course of 13 gallon I only pay about $3 more I'm fine with using premium forever. 

You cam get by fine with regular, but you'll be much happier with premium. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Costco premium(93 octane in my area) will run just fine at 104-112 degrees outside, 87 octane regular no so much. The difference you noticed was not from switching to top tier but just from getting higher octane, what any turbo motor needs in extreme heat.


----------



## Dyver (Jul 17, 2013)

Thanks. I have tried all three grades of fuel and have not hardly anything especially in the MPG department. Since everyone seems to think a higher grade is better I am going to stick with at least mid grade for now.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Costco premium(93 octane in my area) will run just fine at 104-112 degrees outside, 87 octane regular no so much. The difference you noticed was not from switching to top tier but just from getting higher octane, what any turbo motor needs in extreme heat.


Isn't it amusing that the areas that actually get 110 degree temps don't get 93 octane??

I'll stand by the no change in MPG stance for my climate in particular. We hit 90 degrees for 3 days per year on average, and have never hit 100.. ever. I don't people will see noticeable pre-detonation problems until they surpass 100 degree weather (only a small percentage of the country falls in this category). The documented automotive journalist tests regarding hot weather are always performed in California and Nevada it seems like.



Atomic said:


> If you choose to run 87, you are doing yourself a major disservice. The car is completely different on 93 octane; gets better fuel economy and is far more responsive.


If we are going to say on this forum that intakes, exhausts, and performance modifications do not positively affect fuel economy, it is hypocritical for us as a forum to claim that octane positively affects fuel economy. There is no scientific evidence of this (only the contrary) other than extreme heat pre-detonation claims. Since the majority of the country does not live in extreme heat conditions for any substantial amount of time, we should probably stop saying this.

1) Premium fuel does not have any more or less energy content than regular fuel
2) Show us evidence of reduced timing. The only people who have done that were at WOT. Ironic.. because if you are at WOT, you aren't in steady-state conditions to warrant a fuel economy comparison. I can provide the same data of reduced timing, because my car was pulling timing with 91 Octane on a stock baseline dyno at 116 mph (dozens of torque spikes).


----------



## FM Gjedde (May 23, 2011)

Found that 89 octane is best all round for drivability.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Isn't it amusing that the areas that actually get 110 degree temps don't get 93 octane??
> 
> I'll stand by the no change in MPG stance for my climate in particular. We hit 90 degrees for 3 days per year on average, and have never hit 100.. ever. I don't people will see noticeable pre-detonation problems until they surpass 100 degree weather (only a small percentage of the country falls in this category). The documented automotive journalist tests regarding hot weather are always performed in California and Nevada it seems like.
> 
> ...


You can't put a specific number threshold for when the car will start having heat-induced KR. It all depends on the driving conditions. Heck, if you have AC on and you're in stop and go traffic going an average 1 mile an hour with 85 degree temperatures, I can guarantee you that you're heat soaking and pulling timing. It's not the specific temperature, but a combination of the driving conditions, the load, and the temperature. 

The *fact *is that there is plenty of evidence to prove that there will be a fuel economy increase going up to a higher octane on this car. The reason for this is that we have tested, recorded, and proven that the car pulls significant amounts of timing (re: is far less efficient) at lower octanes than at higher octanes. This is not opinion or a wild guess; this is what has been recorded. Where were you when Hoon posted his results? Every single time I scan with Torque, I see KR at moderate loads (my daily driving conditions) even with 93 octane and "eco mode" on the tune. 

The car pulls timing with 91 octane stock because the PCM is designed to advance timing as far as it possibly can to improve efficiency. We know for a fact that due to the static compression of this engine, a higher octane allows us to "pull less timing." Even if someone were to start scanning tomorrow and say "but I didn't see any KR," all they would have to do is pull their battery ground to re-set the PCM and watch KR skyrocket as the PCM starts to re-learn what's going on with the engine and make timing adjustments. There is absolutely no doubt that this car is designed to advance timing as far as it can, and that the octane level of the fuel is the only factor that we can change that limits how far that timing can be advanced. 

It is not hypocritical of us to claim that octane positively affects fuel economy because those of us who claim this are not just claiming anecdotal evidence. This isn't about what you think is happening, it's about what we know is happening because we have scanned this for ourselves, we have felt the immediate differences, and we have tuned cars before to give us a level of understanding that you simply do not have. I'm not insulting you here, but pointing out the fact that until you go through the process of tuning your own car with HPTuners or some other tuning suite, you will not fully understand all that goes on in an engine. The discussion of what we should or should not claim, however, is not a public one. That's why the initial thread on intakes was posted in the VIP only section.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The *fact *is that there is plenty of evidence to prove that there will be a fuel economy increase going up to a higher octane on this car. The reason for this is that we have tested, recorded, and proven that the car pulls significant amounts of timing (re: is far less efficient) at lower octanes than at higher octanes. This is not opinion or a wild guess; this is what has been recorded. Where were you when Hoon posted his results? Every single time I scan with Torque, I see KR at moderate loads (my daily driving conditions) even with 93 octane and "eco mode" on the tune.
> 
> It is not hypocritical of us to claim that octane positively affects fuel economy because those of us who claim this are not just claiming anecdotal evidence. This isn't about what you think is happening, it's about what we know is happening because we have scanned this for ourselves, we have felt the immediate differences, and we have tuned cars before to give us a level of understanding that you simply do not have. I'm not insulting you here, but pointing out the fact that until you go through the process of tuning your own car with HPTuners or some other tuning suite, you will not fully understand all that goes on in an engine. The discussion of what we should or should not claim, however, is not a public one. That's why the initial thread on intakes was posted in the VIP only section.


The problem is not that we cannot prove efficiency is being reduced.. the problem is quantifying how much? How much is the engine throwing away because of knock? Until we can prove that the fuel economy difference falls under the category of 'significant' we shouldn't arbitrarily say "premium fuel will have a significant impact on fuel economy." By significant, I mean noticeable. Some owners on the forum claim it is highly noticeable, others not so much. There are a ton of factors that affect fuel economy such as GM's hackjob (offset entirely by adding a few psi on newer model years). Does it affect fuel economy? Absolutely it does. Noticeable? Not at all.

For starters, one needs to make up the 5-15% price difference of premium. There are a ton of force induction cars on the market now and many are even being marketed as being able to run on regular octane fuel. The ones that actively market regular fuel sometimes give separate torque / horsepower ratings on regular vs. premium. Will the car perform better on premium? Of course it will. However, if there is no damage to the engine it is up to the owner to weigh if the extra price is worth it. This is an enthusiast forum, so more people will be willing to use more expensive fuel for their vehicles. However, this is not _*required*_ of the general populace (which is the question of the OP).


----------



## Yates (Aug 24, 2012)

I have had good results using plain old 87 octane. I guess i'll try a tank of higher octane to see if I have been missing out on anything.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> The problem is not that we cannot prove efficiency is being reduced.. the problem is quantifying how much? How much is the engine throwing away because of knock? Until we can prove that the fuel economy difference falls under the category of 'significant' we shouldn't arbitrarily say "premium fuel will have a significant impact on fuel economy." By significant, I mean noticeable. Some owners on the forum claim it is highly noticeable, others not so much. There are a ton of factors that affect fuel economy such as GM's hackjob (offset entirely by adding a few psi on newer model years). Does it affect fuel economy? Absolutely it does. Noticeable? Not at all.
> 
> For starters, one needs to make up the 5-15% price difference of premium. There are a ton of force induction cars on the market now and many are even being marketed as being able to run on regular octane fuel. The ones that actively market regular fuel sometimes give separate torque / horsepower ratings on regular vs. premium. Will the car perform better on premium? Of course it will. However, if there is no damage to the engine it is up to the owner to weigh if the extra price is worth it. This is an enthusiast forum, so more people will be willing to use more expensive fuel for their vehicles. However, this is not _*required*_ of the general populace (which is the question of the OP).


There is no question over whether the difference is significant or not. The only question is whether or not it is worth the price premium. That's for the owner to decide considering you gain more than just fuel economy. 

At the end of the day, this is why we have Gearheads on the forum. While I appreciate the opinions of everyone, the members that wear gearhead badges are ones that have demonstrated expertise and proven experience and sound mechanical understanding. The consensus among Gearheads is that there is a notable increase in fuel economy, especially during the summer, but the value of that increase depends on the price premium for higher octane fuel. 

If the manual says 87 octane or higher, then it is safe to assume that 87 octane is fine. However, take note of what has been said regarding pinging. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Dyver (Jul 17, 2013)

As someone who considers himself significant in automotive technical knowledge I appreciate the numerous feedback. I am going to test the higher octane theories for myself and see what I think. The Chicago area is going to experience mid 90's temperatures for a few days so I just added 6 gallons of 93 octane from a preferred GM gas supplier to my Cruze. With so many opinions out here I am going to come up with what I think works for me and report my findings.


----------



## Xstaytruex (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm gonna run 93 in my next tank to see the difference. I've ran 87 since I got it but it only has 1500 miles on it. I notice it kinda stumbles a bit after I pull away from a stop, I know it's definitely not my driving, but I think since its been so hot the 87 is kinda holding it back


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I could show you my car pulling timing all over the place running on 87 octane in warm weather. I tried it out (along with a spark plug change) just to see what's happening. At moderate throttle between 1500-3000 RPM, you can just plain feel it, as well as see it in an OBD monitoring app. 

I'll try again this winter with the new plugs, but last winter it couldn't stand it either. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Dyver said:


> As someone who considers himself significant in automotive technical knowledge I appreciate the numerous feedback. I am going to test the higher octane theories for myself and see what I think. The Chicago area is going to experience mid 90's temperatures for a few days so I just added 6 gallons of 93 octane from a preferred GM gas supplier to my Cruze. With so many opinions out here I am going to come up with what I think works for me and report my findings.


Keep in mind that we have tested this before. We have recorded knock on 87 octane and we have recorded less knock and higher spark advance with 93 octane. Also keep in mind that we have one of these threads about every couple of months and the same conclusions are reached each and every time. 

Pay attention to every little detail. For example, humidity levels also affect knock readings. If you had 20% humidity at 87 octane and 80% humidity at 93 octane or vice versa, it will invalidate your comparison. For this reason, we highly recommend that people do a back to back test to validate their results using entire tanks of gas. Run one tank of 87 down till nearly empty, then fill up with 93 octane and run it down till nearly empty, then go back to 87 again. If your 3rd tank does not mimic the 1st, you did something wrong or the conditions changed, and you can expect your entire test to be flawed and invalid. To be truly effective, you should really double up the tests and run two tanks for each octane level. 

This is why you have so many varying opinions. It is rare for anyone to go through the trouble to validate the effects of their changes. For example, Erik has claimed that he saw a significant fuel economy gain by installing the Injen intake, but he hasn't datalogged his car and flashed an updated tune to ensure that the pipe diameter change didn't skew his fuel trims and he he hasn't put the factory intake back on to quantify the results. This is also why those of us who have done the testing, have considerable experience tuning and modifying, and understand how these engines and PCMs work will state as fact that there is a very real benefit with this engine to running higher octane fuel. 

I highly recommend that you run your tank down to empty before filling up with 93 octane, or you will end up with a blend that is closer to 89 octane where the difference might not be as noticeable.


----------



## Xstaytruex (Aug 9, 2013)

Now that I'm reading all these responses, I'm certain that's the issue with mine. I'm gonna let my fuel tank drain down some and fill it up with 93


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Also, 93 Octane may be very beneficial at 90+ degree weather but much less so in the winter...


----------



## Dyver (Jul 17, 2013)

It is going to be 95 degrees here today and I'll see how she does.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Dyver said:


> It is going to be 95 degrees here today and I'll see how she does.


I clearly live in the wrong part of the country.


----------



## 99_XC600 (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, I'm back from vacation and my first 2 days back with my commute has averaged 44 on the highway with running 93 in the tank. This is the first time I've been able to break through 41 over the 6 weeks I've owned the car.


----------



## airbornedave (Jan 26, 2013)

I have owned my 2012 1.4T Eco since February, and have used nothing but 85 in it, and over 14k miles have averaged 35.3 MPG overall. I read this thread yesterday and decided to give the 93 a try to see how it acts. I had less than 1/4 tank of gas, and decided to test the difference. I drove to work (52 miles, mostly interstate w/cruise control engaged) and averaged 34mpg. The low fuel light came on right before I pulled into work. 

On my way home, I filled up with 93. It cost me a little over $3 more than usual on a fill up. I took the same route home, using the cruise as I normally would, and averaged 37mpg over the same 52 miles. 

On top of that, my Cruze seemed more alive! Acceleration seemed to be a bit quicker, and my A/C wouldn't make the car "shudder" while parked at a red light. 

I plan to run a few more tanks of 93 through it and see if the trend continues. I didn't expect to see a noticeable difference right out if the gate, but I swear it's there. 

Also, if the increased MPG continue to be elevated as it first appears, it certainly offsets the cost of the extra $3 at the pump


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I wish I got a 10% MPG bump back when I tried to switch to 91+ from 87. It didn't do d*** for me.


----------



## airbornedave (Jan 26, 2013)

I jumped straight from 85 to 93 though. I was shocked to have that much gain, and really don't expect it to stay at a 10% increase in MPG. If it does stay, I'll find someplace else other than octane to pinch pennies. 

I also have to add that I about had a massive stroke when my low fuel light came on. I have NEVER driven ANY car that low on fuel. I might need therapy after doing so. LOL


----------



## 99_XC600 (Feb 24, 2013)

Honestly, I thought something was broken for the first 2 days in the sense of the shortened length of time it took to achieve 40 MPG. When I was running 89 Octane, I wouldn't get to the 40 number on the highway until my commute was about 3/4 over. For the last 2 days, it's hit 40 on the first 1/4 of my commute then crept up to 44 where it just stayed there until I parked it.

At this point I'm thrilled that I'm getting over 40 on the highway, anything over is just a bonus..


----------



## airbornedave (Jan 26, 2013)

I've been considering a CAI and a Trifecta for a while now. I can only imagine the mpg possibilities from there.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

airbornedave said:


> I've been considering a CAI and a Trifecta for a while now. I can only imagine the mpg possibilities from there.


Not sure if sarcasm...

But save your money. Those will get you more power but will certainly NOT get you MPG. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Not sure if sarcasm...
> 
> But save your money. Those will get you more power but will certainly NOT get you MPG.
> 
> ...


If the owner is an Auto driver, it most certainly will grab a couple MPG thanks to the new shift parameters and adjusted (lower) powerband. However, no one should look into purchasing an intake and tune solely for MPG. Performance and drivability are why you buy them, the potential increase can help one "justify" the cost a bit.


----------



## airbornedave (Jan 26, 2013)

I definitely want both mods to add some extra zip in the Cruze. The extra MPG (what little there may be) is a bonus.

I've always gotten better MPG by adding a CAI in my vehicles. The gains haven't been by much, but every little bit helps. I've never used a tuner before, but I've been reading a lot of good things on here about the MPG gains with the Trifecta in the 1.4L turbo AT's.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Even if there was MPG gains from a CAI, every vehicle I had lost MPG because I gave it more gas to hear the intake investments. Subaru was the worst case of it.


----------



## Atomic (Nov 5, 2011)

Merc6 said:


> Even if there was MPG gains from a CAI, every vehicle I had lost MPG because I gave it more gas to hear the intake investments. Subaru was the worst case of it.


I have had quite the opposite experience myself. I gained about 3mpg highway from Borla muffler and high flow cat, and an additional 2mpg from CAI on my Camaro. It was a very noticeable difference driving a consistent route (over 50 miles roundtrip, no stoplights, 4 stop signs total). Given that our cars are already pretty fuel efficient in stock form, I don't know that there is a significant enough amount left to gain from CAI.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Atomic said:


> I have had quite the opposite experience myself. I gained about 3mpg highway from Borla muffler and high flow cat, and an additional 2mpg from CAI on my Camaro. It was a very noticeable difference driving a consistent route (over 50 miles roundtrip, no stoplights, 4 stop signs total). Given that our cars are already pretty fuel efficient in stock form, I don't know that there is a significant enough amount left to gain from CAI.


Unless that's a ZL1 Camaro, gains with a naturally aspirated vehicle are probably real - however, it makes little difference with a forced inducution/intercooled engine. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Depending on the car, w/o a tune the Subaru's would kinda lean out on some of the intakes.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Unless that's a ZL1 Camaro, gains with a naturally aspirated vehicle are probably real - however, it makes little difference with a forced inducution/intercooled engine.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com App


Well, the efficiency difference should still be there. Cooler air in = cooler air out. I don't know what that means for MPG though..


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

What me means is cool air is being intorduced into a hot as **** turbo housing or screw type compressor where it then has to be cooled down again air to air or liquid/gas to air.


----------



## AlgUSF123 (Feb 19, 2013)

I need to start fueling with higher octane in the summer, in Florida it gets in the high nineties. I certainly can tell my 1.4 ECO knocks a little when I'm letting the clutch out.


----------

