# Using 87 octane is dangerous



## Atomic (Nov 5, 2011)

Let me start off my saying I mostly lurk here but read through a majority of the hot threads on a weekly basis. It comes up all the time - the battle between whether there is a difference between 87 and any higher octane gas in the 1.4T. 

If you are a doubter of the benefits of running 93 octane, I implore you to try it on your next fillup (the difference for a full tank is probably $3, a minimal cost overall). I have used Shell/BP/Sunoco 93 octane gas exclusively since day 1 of purchasing this car and have never experienced any of the hesitation or severe lag described in many threads. Plugs have also been regapped to .030.

Out of complete curiosity, I decided to fill up using 87 today. What a mistake. It was not until doing this that I have experienced such unbelievable lag and gutlessness from this car. It changed the drivability of the car so badly that I'd consider it dangerous to drive with the AC on, taking literally 3 or 4 seconds to get any sort of acceleration. Trying to speed up requires revving the car out to 4 or 5k RPM; because of so much timing being pulled under high load/low rpm conditions it's not possible to accelerate otherwise. I do not experience any of this when running 93 octane. 

If you don't want to spend the extra couple dollars every fill-up, you are cheating yourself out of a ton of drivability, and certainly MPG as well.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dangerous. The Cruze's ECU is programmed to protect the engine from the excessive knocking that occurs on 87 octane. I do agree that 91 runs a lot better in the Cruze. Also, the 1.4 Ecotec engine (with or without turbo) is rated for 91 octane.


----------



## alyupe11 (Jun 9, 2013)

I'll test 91 if it helps with the hesitation and mileage I'm all In...


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dangerous.



I would, I could have wrecked my cruze the first day I had it cuz of the lag. The dealer fill tank for me must have been 87 octane, went to cross a 4 lane hwy(uncontrolled intersection, no lights), hit the gas with what a normal car would need to make it, it was like I was driving a golf cart. 

It was very slow acceleration/turbo lag for at least 4seconds from a dead stop. I get none of this with 91 or 93 octane.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I would, I could have wrecked my cruze the first day I had it cuz of the lag. The dealer fill tank for me must have been 87 octane, went to cross a 4 lane hwy(uncontrolled intersection, no lights), hit the gas with what a normal car would need to make it, it was like I was driving a golf cart.
> 
> It was very slow acceleration/turbo lag for at least 4seconds from a dead stop. I get none of this with 91 or 93 octane.


When you put it this way - yes, 87 octane can be dangerous. As far as danger to the engine, I doubt there is that much danger to the car itself which is what I was replying to.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

*POINT* and now *COUNTER-POINT*: How many times does an "average" Cruze driver romp on the throttle (where 93 octane *IS* beneficial) versus how many times does that same "average" Cruze driver "fill-up"? Numbers versus numbers.

I've got a feeling that most urban drivers (where stoplights dominate) would say "...give me the 87 octane..." while the "lead-footed" (regardless of urban or rural) would say "give me the 93 octane." In-city urban driving "eats" more gas, so the gallons-times-dollars-per-gallon number becomes a very real "out-of-pocket" parameter. Some people are happy with 138 hp, and not worried about squeezing out 139 or 140 or 141 or more hp. If they absolutely NEED to, they can simply fillup with 93 octane when they really need to...such as when heading up to Grandma's House in Colorado, the Alps, or the Himalayas (wink,wink).


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

I've never noticed a difference between regular and premium honestly. I get none of the drivability issues you are describing.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I don't know yet. I'm still experimenting with octane grades. I ran 2,000 miles on the requisite 87 E10 and established mileage and performance numbers. I'm now running 89 E10 to see what the results will be. It's noteworthy that the price spread between grades where I'm filling up (cheapest in the area) is $.15/gallon. Therefore, 93 E10 is $.60/gallon more than the 87 E10. Run those numbers (and it's difficult because gas prices change daily) and I'd spend $625 to $810 per year more for 93 E10. I won't make a judgement until I have a full 2K miles on 89 E10.


----------



## cruze01 (Mar 25, 2011)

Jim Frye said:


> I don't know yet. I'm still experimenting with octane grades. I ran 2,000 miles on the requisite 87 E10 and established mileage and performance numbers. I'm now running 89 E10 to see what the results will be. It's noteworthy that the price spread between grades where I'm filling up (cheapest in the area) is $.15/gallon. Therefore, 93 E10 is $.60/gallon more than the 87 E10. Run those numbers (and it's difficult because gas prices change daily) and I'd spend $625 to $810 per year more for 93 E10. I won't make a judgement until I have a full 2K miles on 89 E10.


Man, you have some steep price differences between grades! Here were I live Speedway is .10 more per grade as you step up, so 93 here is .20 cents more than 87. I figure I burn about 600 gallons a year, that makes it $120.00 more per year for me not figuring in any MPG gain I get from the 93. I do experience a great drivability difference between 87 and 93 so for the $120 bucks its well worth it.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Last summer I averaged 38-40MPG every month with premium. On a few long trips(where I usually get 42mpg+ with premium) I decided to save a few cents per gallon and buy 89 octane. I only managed 37mpg on those trips & my monthly average was down to 36mpg. My monthly cost per mile is always around 11cents, that month of 89 octane only dropped down to 10.5cents. 

I will pay the extra half cent per mile to run premium. Why I saw a drop in MPG might also be most premium gas in my area has no ethanol.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I will pay the extra half cent per mile to run premium. Why I saw a drop in MPG might also be most premium gas in my area has no ethanol.


I think that may be why I have no issues with regular. I buy it only at Shell who's gas here in Moncton does not contain ethanol in any grade.


----------



## Nathan of Aus. (May 16, 2013)

Here in Aus the debate between 91 (equivalent to your 87), 95 (equivalent to your 91) and 98 (slightly better than your 93) often rages. 

It is a FACT stated from the fuel suppliers that 95 is 2-3% more dense than 91. Likewise 98 is 3-4% more dense than 91. This is where your improved fuel economy generally comes from (assuming that your engine is not being retarded due to using a lower than required octane). There is simply more fuel per unit volume in the tank.

Next you must consider that the premium fuels (95 and 98) have been filtered to much higher standard than 91. There are less impurities to clog up your engine. The premium fuels here also use far higher quality detergents helping to unblock fuel injectors and rid your engine of carbon build up.

Finally a quote from a leading motoring website here in Aus which I agree with 100%:
"Here’s the thing: you can put a higher octane fuel in a car than the manufacturer’s requirement. No problem with putting 95 or even 98 in a car designed for 91 – except generally you will be wasting money. Higher octane fuels don’t contain more energy. Octane rating is basically resistance to burning under pressure, allowing higher compression ratios to be used (cylinder pressures, actually). A modern engine designed for 91 will even deliver a very small amount of additional power if fed 95 or 98 because it will advance the timing a little more than with 91. The improvement will be very minor. So minor you probably won’t notice it.

Most engine design experts I’ve ever spoken to regard running higher octane fuel in an engine designed for a lower octane fuel as basically a waste of money.

However, it’s an unmitigated disaster to put a lower-octane fuel in an engine than the one recommended by the manufacturer. This can lead to severe engine damage. The early detonation of the fuel can raise the temperature inside the combustion chamber to levels that the metal parts inside the engine can’t withstand, and unacceptable stresses are also placed on internal components."


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

mcg75 said:


> I think that may be why I have no issues with regular. I buy it only at Shell who's gas here in Moncton does not contain ethanol in any grade.


She'll does so have Ethanol in there gas, any big name has Ethanol, some small town places have no Ethanol around here but they are about .10 to ,30 cents higher in price


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

CyclonicWrath said:


> Shell does so have Ethanol in there gas, any big name has Ethanol, some small town places have no Ethanol around here but they are about .10 to .30 cents higher in price


He's in Canada, not in USA. 

Our USA-EPA federally-mandated ethanol dilution of gasoline is not done in Canada.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

mcg75 said:


> I think that may be why I have no issues with regular. I buy it only at Shell who's gas here in Moncton does not contain ethanol in any grade.


Must be nice. All Shell stations around here are E10. The nearest E0 station to me is a little over an hour drive one way. Somehow that's not an economic choice.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Jim Frye said:


> Must be nice. All Shell stations around here are E10. The nearest E0 station to me is a little over an hour drive one way. Somehow that's not an economic choice.


Here with Shell I have a mix of half with 91 octane no ethanol, and the other half with 93 10% ethanol. Same thing with Mobil. I posted a thread awhile back where I found one station that had both on each pump(with photo). 
http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/27-fuel-economy/13277-shell-91-93-octane.html

You might be surprised(keep looking), there may be a no ethanol station closer than you think. The info on the pure gas website below I found is a bit outdated, I have updated hundreds in my travels over the last few months since it takes only a few minutes and no account. pure-gas.org/


----------



## newsguy99 (May 24, 2013)

obermd said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dangerous. The Cruze's ECU is programmed to protect the engine from the excessive knocking that occurs on 87 octane. I do agree that 91 runs a lot better in the Cruze. Also, the 1.4 Ecotec engine (with or without turbo) is rated for 91 octane.


Thats weird.. My owners manual says 87 or higher.. No where can I find, that it states you 'CAN NOT' use anything below 91...

I've put all 3 grades in my car.. sure, 91 does better in city driving, with all the stop and go traffic... But on highway, I find very little difference.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

CyclonicWrath said:


> She'll does so have Ethanol in there gas, any big name has Ethanol, some small town places have no Ethanol around here but they are about .10 to ,30 cents higher in price


I specifically said in Moncton. All the big names are required to have a 5% average ethanol in their gas. But that average is across the country meaning that half can be E10 and the other half ethanol free.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

newsguy99 said:


> Thats weird.. My owners manual says 87 or higher.. No where can I find, that it states you 'CAN NOT' use anything below 91...
> 
> I've put all 3 grades in my car.. sure, 91 does better in city driving, with all the stop and go traffic... But on highway, I find very little difference.


RPO code in glove box says 91 octane: http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/34-1-4l-turbo/10502-rpo-codes-octane-ethanol-content.html

I find the exact opposite, in city driving my car burns about the same amount of fuel no matter the grade(though is more responsive with premium). However on the hwy I get much better MPG with premium. City MPG is kinda hard to compare/test, it adds stops, traffic & idling,throttle position & gear selection into the variables, but sometimes these are worse than others(see the problem?). With hwy MPG you can do the same route, weather, wind with the cruise set at the same speed and see if there is any difference in outcome much easier.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Meh. No it isn't.

You have to adjust your driving habits anyway with the AC on. Especially on hot days - it will even lag incredibly from a stop on high octane fuel as well.

My car runs ok on 87, but a lot better on 89-93.

It sounds like you just got crappy gas.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

cruze01 said:


> Man, you have some steep price differences between grades! Here were I live Speedway is .10 more per grade as you step up, so 93 here is .20 cents more than 87. I figure I burn about 600 gallons a year, that makes it $120.00 more per year for me not figuring in any MPG gain I get from the 93. I do experience a great drivability difference between 87 and 93 so for the $120 bucks its well worth it.


I wish. There can be a .50 cent gap between 87-93 here at times. I hate it.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

spacedout said:


> You might be surprised(keep looking), there may be a no ethanol station closer than you think.


Hee Hee. Yeah there are E0 stations closer than an hour's drive, but I haven't figured out how to get my car out to the end of the dock to get to the pumps. The E0 stations around here are marinas because there are so many old marine engines that can't run E10 and marina gas is waaaay more expensive.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> I wish. There can be a .50 cent gap between 87-93 here at times. I hate it.


Still think it's worth it? Now you're talking $6-$8 / fill up...

Why do we keep bringing this up? 87 Octane will NOT damage this engine.

Sure, 91+ is better.. but the horsepower and fuel economy ratings are on 87 octane. I think the car does advance timing on premium fuel. That would explain how my stock dyno was 130WHP/154WTQ. I know Hyundai admitted that the Genesis coupe 2.0T actually puts out more horses with 91+ and that it's crank ratings were for 87 octane.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Still think it's worth it? Now you're talking $6-$8 / fill up...
> 
> Why do we keep bringing this up? 87 Octane will NOT damage this engine.
> 
> Sure, 91+ is better.. but the horsepower and fuel economy ratings are on 87 octane. I think the car does advance timing on premium fuel. That would explain how my stock dyno was 130WHP/154WTQ. I know Hyundai admitted that the Genesis coupe 2.0T actually puts out more horses with 91+ and that it's crank ratings were for 87 octane.


The Cruze will definitely advance timing whenever possible; it likes to run with as much power as it can put down on any gas without knocking. 

Whenever you fill up, no matter what grade of gas, you can feel the car jerking for a few seconds as it tries to figure out how much it can advance timing without knocking. Then it smooths out once it figures out what's in the tank. 

I compromise and use 89 unless its real hot outside. Performance is just fine for the most part. When it's over 85-90 and I'm running AC full blast, I prefer the performance between 2-3000 RPM that i can only get in hot temps from 93. 

Once I got my ECU reflashed, it really does do OK on 87 in the winter and MPG is affected very marginally. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Still think it's worth it? Now you're talking $6-$8 / fill up...
> 
> Why do we keep bringing this up? 87 Octane will NOT damage this engine.
> 
> Sure, 91+ is better.. but the horsepower and fuel economy ratings are on 87 octane.


I have read on here the horsepower rating was with 87 octane, last I knew EPA testing was done with no ethanol 91 octane(ever wonder why most can never get the rated MPG?)


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I have read on here the horsepower rating was with 87 octane, last I knew EPA testing was done with no ethanol 91 octane(ever wonder why most can never get the rated MPG?)


Yup, this is accurate...except EPA testing is done on 93, no-ethanol.

http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...y-mpg-estimates-measuring-fuel-economy-page-2


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

spacedout said:


> ...last I knew EPA testing was done with* no ethanol 91 octane *(ever wonder why most can never get the rated MPG?)


The EPA standardized test fuel is called *Indolene* "clear" gasoline.



70AARCUDA said:


> ...it's called *Indolene (E0) Clear Gasoline*:
> 
> 
> Indolene
> ...


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> I have read on here the horsepower rating was with 87 octane, last I knew EPA testing was done with no ethanol 91 octane(ever wonder why most can never get the rated MPG?)


Plenty of people get the rated MPG and then some. It is all how you drive and the weather conditions.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Nathan of Aus. said:


> Finally a quote from a leading motoring website here in Aus which I agree with 100%:
> "Here’s the thing: you can put a higher octane fuel in a car than the manufacturer’s requirement. No problem with putting 95 or even 98 in a car designed for 91 – except generally you will be wasting money. Higher octane fuels don’t contain more energy. Octane rating is basically resistance to burning under pressure, allowing higher compression ratios to be used (cylinder pressures, actually). A modern engine designed for 91 will even deliver a very small amount of additional power if fed 95 or 98 because it will advance the timing a little more than with 91. The improvement will be very minor. So minor you probably won’t notice it.
> 
> Most engine design experts I’ve ever spoken to regard running higher octane fuel in an engine designed for a lower octane fuel as basically a waste of money.
> ...


The 1.4T EcoTec engine in the US/Canada Cruze appears to be an odd exception to both concept that using 91 octane when the owners manual says 87 is a waste of money and also that using 87 when the engine code itself is for 91 is a quick way to damage the engine. The reason for this is that the Cruze's ECU prevents engine damage when running on 87 octane, but at the cost of performance and fuel economy. This engine really wants 91 octane for optimal fuel burn. The Chevy Volt, which uses the same 1.4 EcoTec engine without the turbo, requires 91 octane because GM wants to get the most charge out of each drop of fuel. GMs marketing people decided, rightly or wrongly, that Americans wouldn't go for a $20,000 car that requires 91 octane, so they convinced GM's engineers to program the ECU to handle the knock that occurs in this engine on 87 octane.

The question of whether or not the extra price at the pump is worth paying is one that each Cruze driver will have to answer for him/herself. For those of us with a 20 - 25 cent price increase the answer will almost always be "yes". If you spend all your time on the highway at 55-65 MPH, the answer is probably no because the engine is running at a steady load and only using a small fraction of the total available HP. In stop & go driving that most of us drive on a daily basis, the extra low end power from mid-grade or premium is well worth the extra price at the pump.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Wish they would federally mandate listing the BTU's or Joules per gallon of gas on every pump, so at least you know what you are paying for it, and enforce it!

Way to many variables with over 155 different blends of gas, then various ethanol plants doing the mixing, then pipeline mix ups, then that guy with that big tanker filling the tanks. Most recent problem we are having due to all this rain, another major downpour just an hour ago, is water in the gas. Over 4,000 gas stations in Wisconsin have water problems, or not them, but we the public.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Plenty of people get the rated MPG and then some. It is all how you drive and the weather conditions.


Actually, I'd say it also depends upon which YEAR Cruze you have, as 2011-early 2012 automatic Cruzes had the *3.87:1* final drive ratio and MOST owners are NOT getting their EPA estimated numbers...whereas the 2012 and 2013 automatic Cruzes with the *3.53:1* final drive ratio seem to do well making their EPA estimated numbers.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

It's not the only exception. Most engines (these days) are tuned to run near the maximum power they can on 87 octane, which sometimes results in knock and causes them to adjust valve and ignition timing, etc to prevent this from happening. It makes sense that a turbo engine can't run at its full potential on 87. 

Of engines that I am familiar with, Toyotas 2.5 I4 and 3.0 and 3.5 V6 are well known for running "better" on 91 octane. Same with Honda and Nissan 3.5 V6 engines. Though people will always argue otherwise. 

It's a selling point more than anything. People the buy an Acura, BMW, Infiniti, or Volvo? Sure, they have no problem paying more for premium fuel. They drive a "premium" car to begin with. People that buy a normal Chevrolet or Honda - heck no, they don't want to put premium in the tank. That would actually hurt sales of the cars. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Plenty of people get the rated MPG and then some. It is all how you drive and the weather conditions.


Yes some people do meet or beat EPA ratings, but that is far from the norm. Most automatic drivers get slightly less than EPA combined average and are in the 25-29mpg range. 

From above Indolene  Gas has no additves or ethanol, and a Octane rating of 91-93. Seems EPA testing with something better than what is avalible at most pumps is kinda BS. Should be using 87 octane 10% ethanol with a couple table spoons of water added.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Yes some people do meet or beat EPA ratings, but that is far from the norm. Most automatic drivers get slightly less than EPA combined average and are in the 25-29mpg range.


*Most* automatic drivers have a heavy foot.



70AARCUDA said:


> Actually, I'd say it also depends upon which YEAR Cruze you have, as 2011-early 2012 automatic Cruzes had the *3.87:1* final drive ratio and MOST owners are NOT getting their EPA estimated numbers...whereas the 2012 and 2013 automatic Cruzes with the *3.53:1* final drive ratio seem to do well making their EPA estimated numbers.


I think that has more to do with the driver than the car. The 2012 Automatic gets 5% better fuel economy then the 2011 Automatic.. that is all. Final drive just means the speed at which you get your best MPG is different. For the 2011, the sweet spot is 40-50 mph. For the 2012, it is 45-55 mph.

I don't see how final drive would affect drivers reaching the EPA estimate. If you do 60 mph on a sunny day with no wind, put the cruise control on during a flat stretch of highway, you should exceed the EPA estimate by about 10%. It has worked in every car I've ever driven and this car was no different. Driving it off the lot I was getting 38-40 MPG in those conditions in my 2011. Bone stock, 87 octane. My first road trip on my fuelly log was 37.2 MPG over 420 miles using 87 octane and less than 5,000 miles on the odometer. Nothing special, just cruise control 65-70 mph and a warm sunny day.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

GM claimed (at the time) that the 3.53:1 final drive was good for 9% better fuel economy...makes you wonder where the other 4% evaporated off to!


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

Car runs like **** on 87 period! If you want more mpg on highway or city go 91+ I run 94 in my car but I'm tuned I used 87 for the first 5k km on my car then 91 on 5k km and now I use 94 ever since then, No AC lag no lag of any kind in any conditions and now that it's tuned I have not even the slightest bit of lag, if you want to be cheap and waste money go with 87 what do I care its your car and your loss, I notice a great improvement and I'm actually saving money running 91 if I can't get to a place with 94, but I would never go to anything lower even if I wasn't tuned


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> I think that has more to do with the driver than the car. The 2012 Automatic gets 5% better fuel economy then the 2011 Automatic.. that is all. Final drive just means the speed at which you get your best MPG is different. For the 2011, the sweet spot is 40-50 mph. For the 2012, it is 45-55 mph.
> 
> I don't see how final drive would affect drivers reaching the EPA estimate. If you do 60 mph on a sunny day with no wind, put the cruise control on during a flat stretch of highway, you should exceed the EPA estimate by about 10%. It has worked in every car I've ever driven and this car was no different. Driving it off the lot I was getting 38-40 MPG in those conditions in my 2011. Bone stock, 87 octane.


RPM. When it comes to overall MPG this really does matter. Since the 2012-2014 cars have better hwy gearing they are always cruising at a lower RPM, since most people drive way to fast(above EPA testing speeds) that gearing can make a huge difference. 

I can beat the EPA hwy 38mpg rating with the cruise set at 68mph, my car is bone stock. From what I read most 2011 drivers can't get their EPA MPG even driving constant 65mph. 58mph I'm at 2,000RPM in 6th, 2,500RPM at 72mph. Sure the cars sweet spot MPG/speed is increased, but so is the speed for each given RPM. 

Plus your sweet spot is only considering 6th gear, 5th gear at 35mph gets about the same MPG as 6th at 45mph. Same as 25mph in 4th. On flat roads at these speeds all get between 40-50mpg. Even though its an auto its all about using the right gear for the speed your going for the best MPG.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> GM claimed (at the time) that the 3.53:1 final drive was good for 9% better fuel economy...makes you wonder where the other 4% evaporated off to!


Where did they claim this? I saw 5% in the initial article.



spacedout said:


> RPM. When it comes to overall MPG this really does matter. Since the 2012-2014 cars have better hwy gearing they are always cruising at a lower RPM, since most people drive way to fast(above EPA testing speeds) that gearing can make a huge difference.
> 
> I can beat the EPA hwy 38mpg rating with the cruise set at 68mph, my car is bone stock. From what I read most 2011 drivers can't get their EPA MPG even driving constant 65mph.


Well, since the EPA testing is done at 60 mph, and not 65 mph, that is not fair to the test procedure, no?

I know what you are saying.. I drove a 2012 as a rental last year and it did get about 3 MPG better at 65-70 mph. I remember getting 38-40 MPG. My argument is just I don't think 2011's are handicapped so much by gearing that they can never meet or beat their EPA estimates. I've personally done it. It all depends on the conditions and wind. At the end of the day, you can hypermill or use cruise control but wind will be the biggest hindrance or aid. You can beat the EPA estimate going 70+ mph if you have a tailwind, and you can struggle to hit 32 MPG even at 60 mph if you have a strong headwind. It is the nature of the beast.



CyclonicWrath said:


> Car runs like **** on 87 period! If you want more mpg on highway or city go 91+


Unless you're going fast enough to put the engine into boost and are in 110 F desert heat with the AC on, 91 octane isn't going to increase highway fuel economy at all. The engine just does not work hard enough on the highway to have timing issues.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Where did they claim this? I saw 5% in the initial article.


I have no idea where GM got it from, but simple division (0.91 = 3.53/3.87) says there's a 9% reduction in rpm's due to the lower final drive ratio.



ErikBEggs said:


> Well, since the EPA testing is done at 60 mph, and not 65 mph, that is not fair to the test procedure, no?


Actually, more than half of the time the test speed is less than 65-70 mph, because the TOTAL average test speed is only *48.37 *mph, which includes the VERY BRIEF dash up to 80 mph!










Best we've gotten in our 2011 LTZ has been 32.6 and 32.7 mpg at 65 mph.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> I have no idea where GM got it from, but simple division (0.91 = 3.53/3.87) says there's a 9% reduction in rpm's due the the lower final drive ratio.


Does 9% reduction = 9% more fuel economy? I doubt it. It isn't that simple either. The RPM differences while cruising are smaller at lower speeds and space out as you go faster. It will help people more going 70 mph + then going 55 mph.


----------



## Hoon (Mar 18, 2012)

Dangerous? 

No.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Even got bad gas purchasing 91 octane, no need to say I am doing okay with 87. Just found it worthless to file a complaint with that minimum wage clerk behind the counter. So filed a dispute with the oil company and even received refunds.

Doesn't do anything to complain here, take it up with your oil company. If enough of us did, maybe they will be more careful. 

Just in my neck of the woods, doing the best with Exxon-Mobile, but that doesn't make a bit of difference depending on your locale.


----------



## xczar (May 19, 2013)

I always did not believe in buying higher octane. But after all the talk about the harms of E-10 and now possibly E-15, plus the recent posts from members getting better mileage, I did my own math.

I drive 160 miles per day, 6-7 days a week. Same route, basically same speeds. Based on a .30 cent increase for 93 OCTANE, I am breaking even, dollar wise. That is enough for me. I do notice better performance and the fact that I`m using better gas mixed with that sh*t ethanol has got to be better all round.

I am a member of the AMA (American Motorcycle Association). I have read many articles about the harmfulness of ethanol to every small engine. Be it a lawnmower, motorcycle, quad, or car. I have had problems with my chainsaws, portable generators, and other lawn equipment due to this ethanol. All confirmed by my small engine mechanic near where I live. Our wonderful politicians get lobbied into using this grain alcohol (or whatever it is) to mix in our expensive motors for profit (one way or another). This sh*t has to stop.

Thru yourself or an orginazation like the AMA, voice your concerns to help change this. Not to mention vote the bast*rds out that are in bed with all this ethanol usage.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

It took me a while to realize how you work out higher or lower gearing. I have always been used to a lower final drive meaning a higher number eg: 3.9 = lower gearing higher rpm, 2.66 as in my diesel = lower RPM therefore taller gearing. Just the way we measure gearing here, no big deal just confusing until you get used to it.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

Aussie said:


> It took me a while to realize how you work out higher or lower gearing. I have always been used to a lower final drive meaning a higher number eg: 3.9 = lower gearing higher rpm, 2.66 as in my diesel = lower RPM therefore taller gearing. Just the way we measure gearing here, no big deal just confusing until you get used to it.


That's the correct way to do it here as well. 
The way I remember is higher speed = higher gearing.

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> From above Indolene Gas has no additves or ethanol, and a Octane rating of 91-93. Seems EPA testing with something better than what is avalible at most pumps is kinda BS. Should be using 87 octane 10% ethanol with a couple table spoons of water added.


100% agree. EPA testing should be done with gas purchased at the local corner gas station.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Unless you're going fast enough to put the engine into boost and are in 110 F desert heat with the AC on, 91 octane isn't going to increase highway fuel economy at all. The engine just does not work hard enough on the highway to have timing issues.


CruzeEcoBlueTopaz is proof that this statement is correct. He drives 300+ miles a day on predominately flat highway in temperatures that require little or no A/C. His lifetime average is just shy of 50 MPG running on 87 octane. (culled from his posts)

The rest of us, however, aren't so lucky. We have a lot of stop & go and/or hilly terrain that we drive on a daily basis. The additional power from the advanced timing on 91 octane really helps us as a result.


----------



## Atomic (Nov 5, 2011)

obermd said:


> CruzeEcoBlueTopaz is proof that this statement is correct. He drives 300+ miles a day on predominately flat highway in temperatures that require little or no A/C. His lifetime average is just shy of 50 MPG running on 87 octane. (culled from his posts)
> 
> The rest of us, however, aren't so lucky. We have a lot of stop & go and/or hilly terrain that we drive on a daily basis. The additional power from the advanced timing on 91 octane really helps us as a result.


Having a very long daily commute, on completely flat terrain, without the need for AC or having to sit in stop and go traffic is the most ideal of all situations and is very untypical of the driving conditions that 99% of us experience regularly. 87 octane can certainly be used and will probably net close to the same MPG as 91 or higher octane in this very unique scenario.

Engines have had knock sensors to "protect" them for many years now. Of course you can drive with 87 octane and technically it will not do any harm. However, the response and drivability in the 1.4T disappears when you use 87 in conjunction with any sort of city driving or AC or, even worse, both. It's a huge safety concern when you are trying to merge into traffic or turn through an intersection and it takes 3 or 4 seconds for the car to decide it wants to go somewhere. Can you imagine if your brakes had a 3 or 4 second lag time?

The extra 3 dollars per tank is most certainly worth the added safety, and is offset at least partially or completely by the additional MPG you will get as a result. 

On the note of EPA ratings, it's ridiculously easy to get to hit the EPA estimated MPG in ANY model/year of the 1.4T. Having the 2011 1.4T Auto, I am at the biggest disadvantage with the unfriendly highway gearing. That being said, I recently got 43.6MPG (hand calculated at the pump) on a recent 260 mile trip across Indiana against a 10mph headwind. This was going between 65 and 70mph.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Does 9% reduction = 9% more fuel economy? I doubt it. It isn't that simple either. The RPM differences while cruising are smaller at lower speeds and space out as you go faster. *It will help people more going 70 mph + then going 55 mph*.


Yep, theoretically, you're 100% correct, except for the fact that ICE engines get their best fuel economy at* LOW engine rpms &* *HIGH engine loads*, hence the hypermiler's BSFC mantra: *"Sweet Spot *_= the _*Highest gear *_that produces the _*lowest engine rpms, *_that doesn't _*lug *_the engine._*"* Which is typically <2000 rpm at roadway speeds...with the resulting roadway speed (mph) being a factor of the combined gear and final drive ratios. Most drivers are literally, *driving OUT of their sweet spot *by driving >65mph.

Thus, the 9% reduction in final drive ratio produced more economy on the roadway than during in-city driving where engine speeds are typically higher (overall) due to accelerations and starts/stops.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

obermd said:


> 100% agree. EPA testing should be done with gas purchased at the local corner gas station.


Actually, EPA have a valid reason for using Indolene: it is used specifically so that ALL engines are EMISSION/SMOG tested using the same fuel, ie: the "standard" benchmark for emissions analyses, measurements and requirements.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> Actually, EPA have a valid reason for using Indolene: it is used specifically so that ALL engines are EMISSION/SMOG tested using the same fuel, ie: the "standard" benchmark for emissions analyses, measurements and requirements.


Thats understandable from a testing standpoint to use the same controlled fuel, but when 99% of gas being pumped has additives and 10% ethanol thats what they should be using to testing. The no ethanol alone will give higher numbers by 2-4mpg average( I have seen even higher differences on long hwy trips). 

So if the cruze 1.4T auto was tested with what is actually available to customers it would have a 23city/35hwy rating(sounds more accurate with what I have seen real world).


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the EPA, just regurgitating the *why* they use Indolene.

I agree 1,000% that MPG numbers (which are obviously different from emission tests) SHOULD be done on "normal, street-available, pump gasoline" and not something the average driver cannot buy (you & I will have a VERY difficult time even finding Indolene!).


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

70AARCUDA said:


> Actually, EPA have a valid reason for using Indolene: it is used specifically so that ALL engines are EMISSION/SMOG tested using the same fuel, ie: the "standard" benchmark for emissions analyses, measurements and requirements.


No argument with this. However, since we can't purchase Indolene, it's pretty much a bogus benchmark. We see this all the time from computer hardware makers and they frequently get called on it. The EPA needs to be using something that can be purchased by the public.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Thats understandable from a testing standpoint to use the same controlled fuel, but when 99% of gas being pumped has additives and 10% ethanol thats what they should be using to testing. The no ethanol alone will give higher numbers by 2-4mpg average( I have seen even higher differences on long hwy trips).


10% ethanol only has 2% less pump energy then 100% pure gasoline. That does not equate to anywhere near 2-4 MPG difference. It is more like 0.6 MPG on a 30 MPG rated car..


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> Where did they claim this? I saw 5% in the initial article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It does make a difference I get 100 mor km out of a tank running 91 in the same conditions as 87 but I get no hesitation at all on 91 it's like a different car


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

And I'm getting 950km to a tank on average depending on the week, at best on 87 I was getting 830 that was at best more like 750 tho, on 91 going 120+km/h I still get 800


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> 10% ethanol only has 2% less pump energy then 100% pure gasoline. That does not equate to anywhere near 2-4 MPG difference. It is more like 0.6 MPG on a 30 MPG rated car..


I realize the BTU difference is only equal to about 1/4 gallon of gas per tank, but my real world experience with where and how I drive prove otherwise. 

On trips where I get 42mpg+ over and over again running 91octane no ethanol, when I have even dropped to 89octane with 10% ethanol I can not get over 37mpg. Temps and wind were the same and this has happened dozens of times... enough I will not buy anything but premium. 

I actually decided to test the 91octane(no ethanol) vs 93 octane with 10% ethanol, cruise set at 68mph 50degree day with no AC used both fuels got 39+ MPG. So the MPG improvement might not be totally the ethanol but my car sure does not like anything less than 91 octane. However I have NEVER got over 40MPG with 10% ethanol gas at any octane level in over 25,000miles tested. 

I have run nothing but no ethanol 91 octane for the last 10 fill ups, my average MPG is 38.9MPG. Pretty good considering its about 35% city driving & the fact I am driving an automatic. My last two fill ups were 41.7MPG for 475miles and 43.7MPG for 607miles, I'll stick with the no ethanol gas.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Unless you're going fast enough to put the engine into boost and are in 110 F desert heat with the AC on, 91 octane isn't going to increase highway fuel economy at all. The engine just does not work hard enough on the highway to have timing issues.


I live in a very hilly area, lots of 200-400ft hills with 9-14% grades. Set my cruise control at 62mph with 93octane(10% ethanol) I truck right on up one hill daily summer or winter without the car downshifting at all. As soon as I back down to 91octane or less about 50-100ft up that hill the car downshifts to 5th. This has been tested hundreds of times, as soon as I fill up with 93 octane I can climb that hill all the way in 6th again. 

I am guessing the decreased timing curve from less octane is making just enough less power to causing the downshift. My car loves 93octane.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

CyclonicWrath said:


> And I'm getting 950km to a tank on average depending on the week, at best on 87 I was getting 830 that was at best more like 750 tho, on 91 going 120+km/h I still get 800


That is probably the way you drive brother. 120+ kms is high boost range.. so your car is benefiting from the different timing curve. If you look at e85 cars, e85 is somewhere around 70% pump energy as regular gasoline, but most can get about 80% of the fuel economy. This is because the psuedo 100+ octane of e85 allows the engine to maximize the timing curves. If you drive your car sedately at say... 100-110 km / hr and use cruise control, you won't see any difference between 87 and 91+ octane. Even without cruise control, I don't see how your fuel economy would be 10% more on premium fuel unless you are constantly beating on it.


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

ErikBEggs said:


> That is probably the way you drive brother. 120+ kms is high boost range.. so your car is benefiting from the different timing curve. If you look at e85 cars, e85 is somewhere around 70% pump energy as regular gasoline, but most can get about 80% of the fuel economy. This is because the psuedo 100+ octane of e85 allows the engine to maximize the timing curves. If you drive your car sedately at say... 100-110 km / hr and use cruise control, you won't see any difference between 87 and 91+ octane. Even without cruise control, I don't see how your fuel economy would be 10% more on premium fuel unless you are constantly beating on it.


I drive at 105 on cruze and get those differences from 81 to 91 I get 750 on 81 and 900 on 91 and I have a but of in town driving but not much I don't drive any different with different fuels


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

CyclonicWrath said:


> I drive at 105 on cruze and get those differences from 81 to 91 I get 750 on 81 and 900 on 91 and I have a but of in town driving but not much I don't drive any different with different fuels


Alright, whatever you say man lol. There is no energy difference between 87 and 91 octane so I don't know where your extreme 150 km (17% worse?!) range difference is coming from unless the gas station is selling you straight ethanol


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

I donno but numbers don't lie maybe because I get up to speed fast, to merge but I'm not doing anything different my car also has a shake in the seat at idle with 87 nothing major but I can feel it


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

CyclonicWrath said:


> I donno but numbers don't lie maybe because I get up to speed fast, to merge but I'm not doing anything different my car also has a shake in the seat at idle with 87 nothing major but I can feel it


Yeah, it does idle smoother on higher octane, especially with the AC compressor running.

Re-gapping the plugs also helped immensely with this.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

I have a 2011 LT1. I run 91/93 most of the time but I mix it up too with 87 and 89. 

I do agree the car seems overall better with higher octane. But that may be just me.

I have never gotten below what the EPA estimates say on the sticker. I always get higher. 

Right now I am averaging 30 mpg and that is about 80 to 90 percent city driving. 

The last long trip I took was about 500 miles and I got 39 MPG cruising between 65 and 70 both ways. 

One thing I do notice it seems like I get better gas mileage in the city when I don't try to hyper mile it. I don't know maybe I make more green lights and don't sit at as many reds.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Atomic said:


> I have used Shell/BP/Sunoco 93 octane gas exclusively since day 1 of purchasing this car and have never experienced any of the hesitation or severe lag described in many threads. Plugs have also been regapped to .030.
> 
> Out of complete curiosity, I decided to fill up using 87 today. What a mistake... ...It changed the drivability of the car so badly that I'd consider it dangerous to drive with the AC on, *taking literally 3 or 4 seconds to get any sort of acceleration*. Trying to speed up requires revving the car out to 4 or 5k RPM; because of so much timing being pulled under high load/low rpm conditions it's not possible to accelerate otherwise. I do not experience any of this when running 93 octane.
> 
> If you don't want to spend the extra couple dollars every fill-up, you are cheating yourself out of a ton of drivability, *and certainly MPG as well*.


First off, how is having a car with reduced power dangerous? What does that say for slow cars in general? The Cruze is generally a slow car.

If you were to fill your car with 87 on a regular basis you would know how it reacted to throttle inputs and you wouldn't put yourself in a situation where you were "endangered" in the first place. Dangerous is a strong word, especially when the VAST majority of Cruzes are running around on 87 octane fuel. Are all those cars a hazard to the public and the people driving them?

If your argument is based on the sudden change when switching to 87 taking you off guard, that's still your fault as you should have seen it coming (i.e. why were you using 93 to begin with?).

Your car doesn't take litterally 3-4 seconds to react to your input. From a stop your car would be through an intersection in that time. It may not react as fast as you want it to, but 3-4 seconds is a load.

The price premium for 91-93 octane varies with location. Where I am in Canada the price difference is $5-$6/tank. That's not insignificant. I'm well into my second tank of 87 octane right now after using 91 octane for ~7 months. I am seeing no change fuel economy, though I drive my car pretty easy (look at my sig). Plug gaps are .033". That's me. YMMV.

If you drive your car hard, why are you worried about fuel economy? Either way, don't go making a blanket statement telling everyone they will get better fuel economy with 91 when you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest telling people what your personal experience was with different fuel octanes based on your type of driving (with details) and leaving it at that. Increased drivability using 91 octane in hot weather with AC use is well documented with the 1.4T.

A Cruze fuelled with 87 octane is not dangerous. Save the drama fo yo mama.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

Current Shell pricing at my station (as of this morning) Reg - $4.19, Mid - $4.42, Prem - $4.71!
I fill up weekly with approx 9-10 gals and have had 97 fill-ups so YOU do the math. FWIW, 95 of the fill-ups have been with 87 octane. Is there a noticable difference......I don't know. Would I switch if there was.............NO!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Blue Angel said:


> First off, how is having a car with reduced power dangerous? What does that say for slow cars in general? The Cruze is generally a slow car.
> 
> If you were to fill your car with 87 on a regular basis you would know how it reacted to throttle inputs and you wouldn't put yourself in a situation where you were "endangered" in the first place. Dangerous is a strong word, especially when the VAST majority of Cruzes are running around on 87 octane fuel. Are all those cars a hazard to the public and the people driving them?
> 
> ...


Well said. It ain't dangerous; just know your car and know what to expect. A heat-soaked intercooler from sitting at a stoplight with the AC running on a hot day absolutely KILLS this car at the lower RPMs no matter what octane you are running. It's not unique to just this car - many other non-turbo cars I've driven turn into dogs in the summer too.

I have actually returned some of my best MPG on lower octanes cruising at steady speed.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Vetterin said:


> Current Shell pricing at my station (as of this morning) Reg - $4.19, Mid - $4.42, Prem - $4.71!
> I fill up weekly with approx 9-10 gals and have had 97 fill-ups so YOU do the math. FWIW, 95 of the fill-ups have been with 87 octane. Is there a noticable difference......I don't know. Would I switch if there was.............NO!


Man.. fuel pricing is weird. I've seen even $.60 / gal differences between Regular and Premium. Here in Buffalo, Regular is $3.73, Premium is $3.95. Not a bad increase. Our gas is just high because of NYS fuel tax


----------



## Atomic (Nov 5, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> First off, how is having a car with reduced power dangerous? What does that say for slow cars in general? The Cruze is generally a slow car.
> 
> If you were to fill your car with 87 on a regular basis you would know how it reacted to throttle inputs and you wouldn't put yourself in a situation where you were "endangered" in the first place. Dangerous is a strong word, especially when the VAST majority of Cruzes are running around on 87 octane fuel. Are all those cars a hazard to the public and the people driving them?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I know very well what I am talking about, as I am talking from real experience.

If you were to read what I wrote, which you clearly did not based on your response, you would know this has nothing to do with reduced power. This has to do with the car becoming nearly comatose when using 87 octane as compared to 93, which is not a figment of anyone's imagination who also sees the clear difference between the two. If you have not experienced this, then you have never driven on a hot, humid summer day with the AC on and attempted to negotiate turns through heavily congested intersections from a dead stop. Getting through an intersection in 3-4 seconds? Yeah right.

Fuel economy? There is absolutely a difference. How can I tell this? I just logged my WORST MPG ON A FILLUP since I've owned the car. Is this a coincidence that it's also the first tank I've ran 87 octane? Doubtful. I've driven more interstate on this tank than I typically would and it still took a massive dive for the worse. This car is not driven hard, I have a Camaro for driving hard - your point is moot.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I think you got a tank of gas with water contamination. Response that abysmal is abnormal for the course. 

I had it happen once. Used gas (premium even) from a 7-11 around the corner. My old car about got me hit by an oncoming car in an intersection when it choked and started hiccuping with acceleration - I could actually HEAR it pinging at 4000 RPM. Other people had the problem too - That station was featured on the news later that week and I got my money refunded. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

You get water in the gas your going to have more problems then a little sputtering, I never had a really bad issue with 87 but it is gutless with it in there, it has a bad hesitation and feels like turbo lag is huge, so in a city like Toronto yeah I'd say its dangerous too or you will wait at a light for an hour till its safe to turn haha, I run 94 love my car drives smooth as glass with it in there I get a bit of hesitation from 1 to 2 but it is mainly cuz I shift slower then I should when I get up on it, if I do a quick shift I get glass


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Atomic said:


> I'm sorry, but I know very well what I am talking about, as I am talking from real experience.


You are talking from YOUR experience and presenting that as if it is factual DATA that applies to everyone, when it clearly does not.



Atomic said:


> If you were to read what I wrote, which you clearly did not based on your response...


I read your whole post in detail, quoted the majority of it which I was referring to, and then bolded and underlined the specific parts I was referring to the most.



Atomic said:


> ...you would know this has nothing to do with reduced power. This has to do with the car becoming nearly comatose when using 87 octane as compared to 93, which is not a figment of anyone's imagination who also sees the clear difference between the two. If you have not experienced this, then you have never driven on a hot, humid summer day with the AC on and attempted to negotiate turns through heavily congested intersections from a dead stop. Getting through an intersection in 3-4 seconds? Yeah right.


I guarantee you that if what you're claiming was happening with EVERY Cruze that runs 87 octane gasoline, this forum would be filled with nothing but posts like yours full of people crying bloody murder that GM could sell a car "rated" for 87 but needing higher priced 93 just to be "safe" to drive. So far it is not, and the Cruze is entering its fourth model year of fairly strong sales.

See jblackburn's post above. Did you stop and think that maybe you got a tank of bad gas, or that maybe you should try a second tank from a different station before posting about it on the forum?



Atomic said:


> Fuel economy? There is absolutely a difference. How can I tell this? I just logged my WORST MPG ON A FILLUP since I've owned the car. Is this a coincidence that it's also the first tank I've ran 87 octane? Doubtful. I've driven more interstate on this tank than I typically would and it still took a massive dive for the worse. This car is not driven hard, I have a Camaro for driving hard - your point is moot.


Once again, you are reporting YOUR experience. Just because you and your car, with your driving style and pattern, in your weather and your local station's gas, got worse fuel economy on your first tank of 87 doesn't mean everyone will. Many people have posted about their improved mileage using high octane gas, but that doesn't mean everyone will get better mileage. And this is all before the argument of cost comes into play... some will think the improved drivability is worth it at any cost, and others could care less about the drivability if it costs them even a penny more per tank. Everyone sees things differently.

The Cruze is not dangerous on 87 octane gas. It would seem like you maybe got a bad tank of gas, OR you are just making a much bigger deal than most about the same thing many Cruze 1.4T owners have been reporting since the beginning: hot weather drivability with AC use improves with high octane gas. Try another tank of 87 from a different station and if it doesn't get any better, just go back to what suits you.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> The Cruze is not dangerous on 87 octane gas. It would seem like you maybe got a bad tank of gas, OR you are just making a much bigger deal than most about the same thing many Cruze 1.4T owners have been reporting since the beginning: hot weather drivability with AC use improves with high octane gas. Try another tank of 87 from a different station and if it doesn't get any better, just go back to what suits you.


I agree sir. To each its own. There are a lot of exaggerated claims about the octane difference. When I rented a 2012 LT in Alabama (with Alabama heat), we used 87 octane and my mom still regarded it as "surprisingly peppy." 3 adults, luggage, AC, 87 octane in the tank. It was a rental so I didn't give a crap about using premium.. we filled it with 87 for $40 from bone dry to full after it it lasted all week.. *shrug*


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> I agree sir. To each its own. There are a lot of exaggerated claims about the octane difference. When I rented a 2012 LT in Alabama (with Alabama heat), we used 87 octane and my mom still regarded it as "surprisingly peppy." 3 adults, luggage, AC, 87 octane in the tank. It was a rental so I didn't give a crap about using premium.. we filled it with 87 for $40 from bone dry to full after it it lasted all week.. *shrug*


Same with mine if I choose to run 87 (you do have to get used to the powerband difference off-idle more with a manual) and same with a rental in Florida heat - it did just fine when it was 90 outside.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

If 87 E10 made the Cruze THAT dangerous to drive, I think there would be a lot of postings on the various forums and on NHTSA and NHTSA would be looking at it closely. The car is supposedly designed to run properly on 87 E10. If it doesn't, the issue needs to be brought to the attention of the DOT. Has the OP filed a complaint with NHTSA? I only looked at the June '13 entries for 2011 model year and I didn't look at all 155 2011 Cruze complaints, but I didn't see any that pertained to poor performance on acceleration.

Driving itself is dangerous as over 20,000 people are killed in vehicle crashes every year in the U.S. I wonder how many of those vehicles should have been running something other than 87 E10?


----------



## hawkeye (Mar 31, 2012)

Holy crap, it took a while to read that thread. I'll throw in my observations from my 2011 Eco automatic with 26/37 ratings. I do experience the lag that the original poster talked about in hot weather with the a/c on. It may feel like a long time, but I bet it's no more than 1 second. I have experienced no difference in MPG regardless of the octane level. In MN have 87, 89, 91 and they all have ethanol. You can not legally put in E0 gas, unless it's a recreational vehicle or classic car. I run the 89 which is 5 cents more than the 87 because I tend to get a little surging on a cold engine when accelerating with the 87. 91 runs over 20 cents more per gallon and I'm not willing to do it since I didn't see any mpg increase. Also, I do meet/exceed the epa ratings with my 2011/automatic. Just recently I hit 39.7 for a two way average and I always exceed the speed limit by 6mph. The trip was mostly 71-76 mph. The sweet spot for me would be under 61 mph, but that's the slowest i'll go in a 55 mph zone, and I've attained as high as 44.5 mpg when babying it on the back roads.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

hawkeye said:


> In MN have 87, 89, 91 and they all have ethanol. You can not legally put in E0 gas, unless it's a recreational vehicle or classic car.


Is this really true? I know MN does have some stupid laws, like you can't use any type of windshield GPS or radar mounts either. This octane thing seems strange though, especially since so many stations in MN sell no ethanol gas. 
pure-gas.org : ethanol-free gas stations

I get far better MPG with no ethanol premium than anything else, I would run it anyway even if I lived in Minnesota.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

hawkeye said:


> In MN have 87, 89, 91 and they all have ethanol. You can not legally put in E0 gas, unless it's a recreational vehicle or classic car.


So I decided to look into this more myself, seems the reason for this stupid law is Minnesota is the leading state for ethanol production and E85 stations. Seems strange since E85 sucks in the cold. 
https://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/ethanol.aspx

However the Ethanol Free Premium Coalition lists the law and its exceptions, it does include small engines. Reading the law there was no defined size that equates small. I contest that 84ci, or 1.4L is a small engine, since its smaller than what some motorcycles use(and according to MN law motorcycles are exempt from the E10 use)
Ethanol Free Premium Coalition


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Take a close look at the stations that sell E0 in MN. Like the ones around me, the vast majority (if not all) are marinas. Again, boat motors like E0, or require it. Isn't MN called the land of a thousand lakes?

UPDATE: Just to educate myself, I checked around a few marinas here. The E0 they sell is 90 octane and runs at least a dollar more per gallon than 91 E10 at the local gas stations. They have a pretty captive audience and lower volumes, so I'd say that explains the cost difference. E0 appears to be a dying breed for the automotive world.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

*(no so) TONGUE-in-CHEEK COMMENT* - The ONLY time using *87 octane *in a Cruze will be DANGEROUS is when it's a *diesel* *Cruze*!


----------



## joewatson86 (Jul 6, 2011)

So I just read my manual for the Cruze (Canadian, don't know if the manuals are different??) and the recommended fuel type is 87 octane from a TOP TIER gas supplier (www.toptiergas.com). Putting anything higher is really just a waste of money. 
If your car is hesitating that much with 87, chances are, the gas you are getting is crap or you have other issues that are made worse with crappier gas. Pure and simple. Since our turbo cars create much more heat than N/A cars, they need fuels with better detergents in them to help prevent the intake build-up of gunk that is seen in cheaper gases and oils.
I'm not saying that a higher octane won't help performance or maybe even regular driving depending on the elevation that you live at but more often than not, higher octane gas is a waste of money unless specified by the manufcturer.

but if you are giving out free money I'll take some lol.

Just my 2 cents......of crap, no pennies anymore.....just my 5 cents then! lol.


----------



## CyclonicWrath (May 14, 2013)

joewatson86 said:


> So I just read my manual for the Cruze (Canadian, don't know if the manuals are different??) and the recommended fuel type is 87 octane from a TOP TIER gas supplier (www.toptiergas.com). Putting anything higher is really just a waste of money.
> If your car is hesitating that much with 87, chances are, the gas you are getting is crap or you have other issues that are made worse with crappier gas. Pure and simple. Since our turbo cars create much more heat than N/A cars, they need fuels with better detergents in them to help prevent the intake build-up of gunk that is seen in cheaper gases and oils.
> I'm not saying that a higher octane won't help performance or maybe even regular driving depending on the elevation that you live at but more often than not, higher octane gas is a waste of money unless specified by the manufcturer.
> 
> ...


Lmao so since you go by the book you prob use the recommended semi syn oil, yes the cruze will get by on 87 oct fuel but it does a lot better on 91 all around, and yeah the car will get by on semi syn oil, but it will go a lot farther on full syn, that's like people that get A+ in school but all the government requires you to pass is a D- so why try so hard, doesn't make a hole bunch of sense to me


----------



## jpm84092 (Jun 23, 2013)

When I had my 2011 Cruze ECO I did not notice a problem with 87 Octane gas. Perhaps that is because the 6-speed manual transmission could be driven geared for conditions. 1st was really low and second wasn't far behind.

87 or 91 Octane would ruin my current Cruze - a 2014 2.0 Liter Turbocharged Cruze Clean Diesel. A Cruze that is an oil-burner; one test drive and I was hooked. That bad boy has incredible power and has no problem in the Rocky Mountains of Utah.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

joewatson86 said:


> So I just read my manual for the Cruze (Canadian, don't know if the manuals are different??) and the recommended fuel type is 87 octane from a TOP TIER gas supplier (www.toptiergas.com). Putting anything higher is really just a waste of money.
> If your car is hesitating that much with 87, chances are, the gas you are getting is crap or you have other issues that are made worse with crappier gas. Pure and simple. Since our turbo cars create much more heat than N/A cars, they need fuels with better detergents in them to help prevent the intake build-up of gunk that is seen in cheaper gases and oils.
> I'm not saying that a higher octane won't help performance or maybe even regular driving depending on the elevation that you live at but more often than not, higher octane gas is a waste of money unless specified by the manufcturer.
> 
> ...


Before making a blanket statement like this, take a look at 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Long Term Road Test - MPG. Especially note the numbers at the bottom of the article.

The 1.4 liter EcoTec engine is designed for and rated for 91 and higher octane, with or without the integrated turbo. The only way the Cruze avoids destroying the engine on lower octane is by pulling ignition timing when it detects pinging and knocking. This has side effects which impact drivability and fuel economy. Specifically, the throttle will pulse like the transmission is slipping, you lose horsepower, and your overall fuel economy will go down. If you drive at 50-60 MPH on flat roads all the time you may not notice any of these negative side effects, but most of us are in stop & go traffic and drive significantly faster that this on the highway.

Do you really think Americans (I can't speak for Canadians on this one) would purchase a "economy" car if it required premium gas?


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

obermd said:


> ...the throttle will pulse like the transmission is slipping, you lose horsepower, and your overall fuel economy will go down. If you drive at 50-60 MPH on flat roads all the time you may not notice any of these negative side effects, but most of us are in stop & go traffic and drive significantly faster that this on the highway.


FWIW, my experience (very light driving) has shown no significant difference between 87 and 91 for fuel economy. BUT, I don't drive in stop and go traffic, and though the weather here can get quite hot (today 31C (88F) + 90% humidity = 40C, or 105F), it is generally much cooler than most areas in the southern 'States.

I noticed the throttle pulsing before trying 91 octane, but to be honest the pulsing has not returned now that I'm back on 87. I think opening the plug gaps to 0.033" helped immensely with that. I don't go WOT often, but I did a couple of 2nd gear pulls up a hill near my place and couldn't get any surging or pulsing at all.



obermd said:


> Do you really think Americans (I can't speak for Canadians on this one) would purchase a "economy" car if it required premium gas?


As far as driving environments go, I think it's safe to assume for the most part that things are pretty comparable. I'm in Ottawa which is quite a bit farther North than Southern Ontario, and that's where a huge percentage of Canadians reside (the Greater Toronto Area alone is home to over 10 Million people, almost 1/3 of Canada's population). Having said that, the entire States of North Dakota and Washington are farther North than I am. I'm sure Washington benefits from the costal climate, but I bet North Dakota can get pretty cold in the middle of winter.

Now if you're talking gas prices, well, that's another story! If we're paying $1.25/L for 87 octane, that's the same as $4.74/Gal... even with the smaller fuel tank, I'm thankfully (tankfully?) only filling my Eco once every 1.5-2 weeks!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> I noticed the throttle pulsing before trying 91 octane, but to be honest the pulsing has not returned now that I'm back on 87. I think opening the plug gaps to 0.033" helped immensely with that. I don't go WOT often, but I did a couple of 2nd gear pulls up a hill near my place and couldn't get any surging or pulsing at all.


Same here, but power in the 1500-3000 range is much better on 89-91 for me with a heat-soaked intercooler. In cool weather, where it was in the 70's for a bit last week, it didn't care what it was running.



> _Do you really think Americans (I can't speak for Canadians on this one) would purchase a "economy" car if it required premium gas?_


I bought my car fully intending to run it on 87 because it said it could. I wanted an economy car. I was tired of having to use premium in my Volvo @ 23 MPG.

The Cruze's fuel economy helps offset the extra cost of the fuel though; I still refuse to use premium @ 40-50 cents more than regular unless the car absolutely NEEDS it in extremely hot weather, so it gets a diet of 89 most of the year.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Blue Angel said:


> FWIW, my experience (very light driving) has shown no significant difference between 87 and 91 for fuel economy. BUT, I don't drive in stop and go traffic, and though the weather here can get quite hot (today 31C (88F) + 90% humidity = 40C, or 105F), it is generally much cooler than most areas in the southern 'States.
> 
> I noticed the throttle pulsing before trying 91 octane, but to be honest the pulsing has not returned now that I'm back on 87. I think opening the plug gaps to 0.033" helped immensely with that. I don't go WOT often, but I did a couple of 2nd gear pulls up a hill near my place and couldn't get any surging or pulsing at all.


The first time I drove my ECO MT up I-70 west of Denver to Evergreen I didn't use cruise control and the pulsing was so bad it felt like the clutch was slipping the entire way up. However there was no hot burning rubber smell you get with an overheated clutch. This was at a steady 65 MPH but up a 6+% grade for a few miles which puts the engine under significantly higher load than maintaining 65 on flat ground. After I switched to 91 octane, but before I regapped to 0.035" I took a trip across Colorado on I-70. Same hill climb but no throttle pulsing. As you pointed out, not everyone will be in driving environments where this is a noticeable issue.



Blue Angel said:


> As far as driving environments go, I think it's safe to assume for the most part that things are pretty comparable. I'm in Ottawa which is quite a bit farther North than Southern Ontario, and that's where a huge percentage of Canadians reside (the Greater Toronto Area alone is home to over 10 Million people, almost 1/3 of Canada's population). Having said that, the entire States of North Dakota and Washington are farther North than I am. I'm sure Washington benefits from the costal climate, but I bet North Dakota can get pretty cold in the middle of winter.
> 
> Now if you're talking gas prices, well, that's another story! If we're paying $1.25/L for 87 octane, that's the same as $4.74/Gal... even with the smaller fuel tank, I'm thankfully (tankfully?) only filling my Eco once every 1.5-2 weeks!


I was referring to gas prices and attitudes towards paying for premium even when it will help the car. I'm aware that there are parts of Canada are further south than some parts of the lower 48 US states. There's a real attitude here that cost is the only deciding factor of where to spend your money - look at all the Walmarts on the outskirts of small towns with deserted downtown shopping districts in the US if this isn't obvious. I don't think the Cruze would have been nearly as successful here if Chevy had said it requires 91 octane. The price differential between 87 and 91/93 can range anywhere from 20 cents to over 50 cents. At 20-25 cents premium the improved fuel economy most of us will see will make the cost/mile a wash. Above 25 cents other factors such as drivability and owner's preferences will be the deciding factors.


From what I have gathered here since I joined CruzeTalk, 87 octane will work if you don't have a lot of hot weather stop & go driving and if you don't exceed about 60 MPH on flat ground (~2000 RPM in non ECO trims). If you have a lot of stop & go in high ambient temperatures, severely hilly terrain, or routinely cruise above 2,000 RPM the car will definitely benefit from using either mid-grade or premium gas.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

obermd said:


> There's a real attitude here that cost is the only deciding factor of where to spend your money - look at all the Walmarts on the outskirts of small towns with deserted downtown shopping districts in the US if this isn't obvious. I don't think the Cruze would have been nearly as successful here if Chevy had said it requires 91 octane.


You got that right. The Walmart plague is strong in Canada too... my home town of Port Perry just got a Walmart, as if a small town of ~10,000 really needs a huge discount retailer...


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Blue Angel said:


> You got that right. The *Walmart plague *is strong in Canada too... my home town of Port Perry just got a Walmart, as if a small town of ~10,000 really needs a huge discount retailer...


The *commerce cancer *of BIG BOX marketing.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> The Cruze's fuel economy helps offset the extra cost of the fuel though; I still refuse to use premium @ 40-50 cents more than regular unless the car absolutely NEEDS it in extremely hot weather, so it gets a diet of 89 most of the year.


My fuel cost per mile is about 1/2cent difference between 89 and 91/93 octane. Prices here are also 30-60cents a gallon more depending on the station, day of the week, the way the wind blows or any other reason you care to conjure up. 87octane was $3.59 today when I filled up, the premium I bought was $4.03. 

That's one thing I hate about premium, there is no consistency in prices between stations like regular or even diesel. Once the weather cools I may drop back to 87 octane for a few tanks, kinda tired always having to monitor prices between stations. I paid $4.03 by checking Gas buddy today, one station I could have stopped at was charging $4.88 for the same premium(same brand gas). Those stations are 10miles apart. 85cent difference x the 10.49gallons I bought is a $8.92 more I would have paid. 

USA National Gas Price Heat Map - GasBuddy.com


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> My fuel cost per mile is about 1/2cent difference between 89 and 91/93 octane. Prices here are also 30-60cents a gallon more depending on the station, day of the week, the way the wind blows or any other reason you care to conjure up. 87octane was $3.59 today when I filled up, the premium I bought was $4.03.
> 
> That's one thing I hate about premium, there is no consistency in prices between stations like regular or even diesel. Once the weather cools I may drop back to 87 octane for a few tanks, kinda tired always having to monitor prices between stations. I paid $4.03 by checking Gas buddy today, one station I could have stopped at was charging $4.88 for the same premium(same brand gas). Those stations are 10miles apart. 85cent difference x the 10.49gallons I bought is a $8.92 more I would have paid.
> 
> USA National Gas Price Heat Map - GasBuddy.com


Ooooo, nice map. I <3 maps; that's actually very well done.

I'm in the 2nd from top...the darker orange 

So with that 1/2 cent difference, do YOU see a difference in MPG between 89 and 93 if BOTH contain ethanol? I don't think we have no-ethanol stations here, and I'm too lazy to go out of my way to find it since the Cruze likes ethanol anyway.

I seem to remember a big difference between 87-89 from last summer (before I knew about the plug gaps and yada yada) on a 250-mi highway trip I do, but there could have been many other factors involved with that difference - AC use is a big difference for my car. 

I've never noticed a difference between 89-93 most of the time, but again, my driving isn't very consistent as to where I could note a 1-2 MPG difference.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> So with that 1/2 cent difference, do YOU see a difference in MPG between 89 and 93 if BOTH contain ethanol? I don't think we have no-ethanol stations here, and I'm too lazy to go out of my way to find it since the Cruze likes ethanol anyway.
> 
> I've never noticed a difference between 89-93 most of the time, but again, my driving isn't very consistent as to where I could note a 1-2 MPG difference.


 I have never got over 40MPG tank fill up with any gas that contained ethanol, there is a slight performance increase going from 89octane to 93octane both with 10% ethanol but I seen no difference in MPG. The best I have got with 93 octane 10% ethanol shell was 39.8MPG. 

With 40%city/60%hwy with 91 octane no ethanol I usually average 36-37mpg. I did test 89 octane no ethanol and got the same 36-37MPG with the same route. With ethanol gas that 36-37mpg ends up 33-34mpg. 

My last three tanks were all 91 octane no ethanol and I averaged 42mpg over 1500miles(70% hwy). This fill up I filled with 93 octane 10% ethanol, I plan to test 93 E10 over the next month and see if I notice any drop in MPG with a similar route. 

Looks to be a few no name no ethanol stations near you, might be able to scrounge up a top tier station in there somewhere. They have a list by state or a map if you prefer. Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Looking at that no ethanol map above you notice all large city's only offer E10? I suspect by forcing all drivers in the city to run E10 the overall pollution has to be much lower.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Looking at that no ethanol map above you notice all large city's only offer E10? I suspect by forcing all drivers in the city to run E10 the overall pollution has to be much lower.


Yup, they hike the prices about 30-40 cents too. I can head up the highway 30 minutes (on a weekend with light traffic) and gas prices drop significantly. All because of an increased "gas tax" to pay for construction of HOV lanes that you have to pay to use and useless road construction that no one uses. 

Brilliant, VA.

I miss living out the part of the state in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Conspiracy theory... prices higher for premium in well-off areas with large concentrations of luxury cars? I notice a larger difference between regular and premium in the suburbs personally, but that may just be my imagination.


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Yup, they hike the prices about 30-40 cents too. I can head up the highway 30 minutes (on a weekend with light traffic) and gas prices drop significantly. All because of an increased "gas tax" to pay for construction of HOV lanes that you have to pay to use and useless road construction that no one uses.
> 
> Brilliant, VA.
> 
> I miss living out the part of the state in the middle of nowhere.


Man I love Texas filled up Phillips 66 top teir 91 octane $3.69 a gallon.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## H3LLON3ARTH (Dec 16, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Looking at that no ethanol map above you notice all large city's only offer E10? I suspect by forcing all drivers in the city to run E10 the overall pollution has to be much lower.


Dallas is the same way. Amarillo were I live only has one station that is 100% ethanol free.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Conspiracy theory... prices higher for premium in well-off areas with large concentrations of luxury cars? I notice a larger difference between regular and premium in the suburbs personally, but that may just be my imagination.


High demand is more likely. There's a gajillion cars on the road in dense urban/suburban areas.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

spacedout said:


> I have never got over 40MPG tank fill up with any gas that contained ethanol, there is a slight performance increase going from 89octane to 93octane both with 10% ethanol but I seen no difference in MPG. The best I have got with 93 octane 10% ethanol shell was 39.8MPG.
> 
> With 40%city/60%hwy with 91 octane no ethanol I usually average 36-37mpg. I did test 89 octane no ethanol and got the same 36-37MPG with the same route. With ethanol gas that 36-37mpg ends up 33-34mpg.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link! That's awesome! Unless someone forgot to add Petro Canada 91 to the list (not likely), I've been comparing the mileage of ethanol 91 to ethanol 87. I might just have to try out some "real" 91 octane gas and see what happens.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Blue Angel said:


> Thanks for the link! That's awesome! Unless someone forgot to add Petro Canada 91 to the list (not likely), I've been comparing the mileage of ethanol 91 to ethanol 87. I might just have to try out some "real" 91 octane gas and see what happens.


Some of their info is a bit outdated, but you can update or add stations without needing to create an account. Have added/fixed dozens in my area.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

Blue Angel said:


> Just because you and your car, with your driving style and pattern, in your weather and *your local station's gas*, got worse fuel economy on your first tank of 87 doesn't mean everyone will.


I forgot to mention the Ethanol content of your local station's gas as well (thanks to spacedout for the link to pure-gas.org).

Not only could you have suffered from a bad tank of 87, it could be that your station has an ethanol blend 87 octane fuel and a non ethanol blend 91. This seems to be the case at a lot of stations, but as with most other factors this will vary by location. Not many stations in Canada offer ethanol-free 87 octane, in fact almost none do, but they apparently exist. It seems far easier to locate ethanol-free 91 octane, and if the person reporting their fuel economy doesn't know what fuel they're using that also renders their fuel economy experience irrelevant to others who may not be using the same blend of fuel.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Ethanol free vs. non-ethanol gas won't have a perceivable difference in fuel economy. The difference is there, but you most likely wont notice it because the energy difference is only 2%.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Ethanol free vs. non-ethanol gas won't have a perceivable difference in fuel economy. The difference is there, but you most likely wont notice it because the energy difference is only 2%.


It was good for about a 4-MPG difference on my Volvo (a car that already got low fuel economy to begin with). I was curious and tested 3 tanks of it when I lived somewhere that I could get ethanol-free gas. Don't know what the difference was, but it seemed to be very sensitive to it.

That said, both it and the Cruze LOVE ethanol for performance reasons - the cooling effects of the fuel that everyone hates help reduce spark pre-ignition that the Cruze engine is EXTREMELY sensitive to. That's enough for me to take a slight dent in fuel economy. My Cruze performs better on some high-ethanol, high-detergent 87 (Exxon) than it does on some grades of 89 octane.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

I don't get how that would make sense though.. 87 Octane is 87 Octane is it not? How would ethanol affect the cooling properties if they both have the same anti-knock number? I understand what you mean if you are talking about e85 which is 100+ octane but 87 E0 and 87E10 is still 87.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Freshness? Additives?

If there's one thing owning 2 turbo cars has taught me, gas =/= gas. They're very picky about what they do and don't like. The Cruze hates Sheetz with a passion.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> Freshness? Additives?If there's one thing owning 2 turbo cars has taught me, gas =/= gas. They're very picky about what they do and don't like. The Cruze hates Sheetz with a passion.


I'd like to modify your statement:



> If there's one thing owning cars has taught me, gas =/= gas.


 I've lost count the number of times I've had to run something like Shell vPower or even taken my car to the dealership when the Shell vPower didn't work to clean out a tank of crap gas, sometimes from a well regarded brand. My ECO MT is the first turbo car I've owned.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> Ethanol free vs. non-ethanol gas won't have a perceivable difference in fuel economy. The difference is there, but you most likely wont notice it because the energy difference is only 2%.


I usually fill up at 1/4 tank, so around 10gallons burned on my 1LT. Usually get 30-50 miles extra per tank with no ethanol premium. That spread over 10 gallons is 3-5MPG increase. This is based on numerous fill ups, I have kept track of octane and ethanol content on every fill up since last summer on my fuelly account. I have tried no ethanol 91 octane from Kwik Trip, Mobil, Shell, BP, Cenex and get the same better MPG with all of them. 

My last three tanks were no ethanol 91 octane, for 1500 miles averaged 42mpg. I'm going to run the next 3 tanks of 93 octane 10% ethanol & see how it effects my MPG. I may be dealing with higher temps & more AC use though so I will have to take that into account.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Freshness? Additives?
> 
> If there's one thing owning 2 turbo cars has taught me, gas =/= gas. They're very picky about what they do and don't like. The Cruze hates Sheetz with a passion.


Bad gas is bad gas. It all comes from the same refinery


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

spacedout said:


> I usually fill up at 1/4 tank, so around 10gallons burned on my 1LT. Usually get 30-50 miles extra per tank with no ethanol premium. That spread over 10 gallons is 3-5MPG increase. This is based on numerous fill ups, I have kept track of octane and ethanol content on every fill up since last summer on my fuelly account. I have tried no ethanol 91 octane from Kwik Trip, Mobil, Shell, BP, Cenex and get the same better MPG with all of them.
> 
> My last three tanks were no ethanol 91 octane, for 1500 miles averaged 42mpg. I'm going to run the next 3 tanks of 93 octane 10% ethanol & see how it effects my MPG. I may be dealing with higher temps & more AC use though so I will have to take that into account.


I've run 91 Octane, 0% ethonal through a WNY retailer called NOCO. I used them within my first 10 tanks of gas for 3 tanks, and 87 E10 from Sunoco for about 4-5 tanks. They returned the same fuel economy and this was in August 2011. *shrug* I didn't notice a difference at all. Power delivery is a little smoother with the Premium, but that was because of the higher octane not the lack of ethanol. It didn't affect my fuel economy at all. My best tank of 37.2 MPG was with 87 octane E10, and stood until I broke it over a year later (I needed a no wind summer day and Cool Air Intake to beat it). 2% is just not perceivable unless lab tests are somehow less accurate then anecdotal evidence...

Ohh, E0 is also more than 2% more at the pump $$$ wise than E10. Still think it's worth it?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> I've lost count the number of times I've had to run something like Shell vPower or even taken my car to the dealership when the Shell vPower didn't work to clean out a tank of crap gas, sometimes from a well regarded brand. My ECO MT is the first turbo car I've owned.


I was one of the biggest coolaid drinkers of the Top Tier program, but was having issues with severe random knock on Kwik trip 91 octane. Decided to fill up at BP and Cenex stations(stations I have used in the past without issues with other cars) & the random Knock is gone. Have not had knock since last fall, since stopping running Kwik trip gas. Top Tier, Ya right. I'll just runs some Techron concentrate before each oil change if I buy at too many non top tier stations. 


I also had knock once on 93 octane 10% ethanol from Mobil, however I think the gas was bad. See Ethanol only has like a 3 month shelf life, so buying premium with ethanol it might be bad if the station does not sell allot. Pure gas has a 3 year shelf life.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> See Ethanol only has like a 3 month shelf life, so buying premium with ethanol it might be bad if the station does not sell allot. Pure gas has a 3 year shelf life.


THIS is why freshness of the fuel makes a huge difference. I've even had bad V-Power before.

I always try to go to a high-volume gas station for this reason.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

Even though I was a proponent of using 87, now that hot weather is here, I have done an about face! After driving @ 300+ miles over the weekend, I was afraid of putting my foot thru the floorboard(trying to get more power) and I am getting overly tired of downshifting so much(esp going up hills with the AC on). This was all after 2 tanks of 87 and no tune. After all that I changed my mind on the tune and am looking forward to 93 octane and power again. My wife's car 2005 Malibu doesn't care. not turbo charged and a 2.2 engine. The 1.4 is saying what are you doing to me!!!!!


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ErikBEggs said:


> 2% is just not perceivable unless lab tests are somehow less accurate then anecdotal evidence...
> 
> Ohh, E0 is also more than 2% more at the pump $$$ wise than E10. Still think it's worth it?


Sorry but my real world increase is 3-5MPG average with no ethanol gas, seems higher than 2%. Maybe now with your car more broke in you should test it again. We will see once I test my next three tanks with the 10% ethanol gas If I get less MPG. 

I'm really unsure of how you can compare E0 & e10 pricing, since at 99% of stations only premium is offered as no ethanol so your also paying for higher octane. I have one Cenex station near me that has two set of pumps, one with ethanol in all grades, one with no ethanol in all grades. I compared the price and it was less than 10cents per gallon difference for all grades. Interestingly the no ethanol was 87,89,91 octane & the 10% ethanol was 87,90,93 octane. 

Have been wanting to try their 90 octane, almost premium at a midgrade price.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> THIS is why freshness of the fuel makes a huge difference. I've even had bad V-Power before.
> 
> I always try to go to a high-volume gas station for this reason.


I found my best gas at a BP that would qualify as high-volume. this was even with 87 octane. Maybe the 87 I just put in was "bad" my car is running strange. I am waiting for that "Loss of Power" sign to come on.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The Safeway station I use weekly get two or three resupplies each week. I'd call that high volume as well.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

I have a decade of careful 87 octane 10% ethanol blend records for 3 cars. Switching to ethanol free 100% gas, my 3 cars recorded years of accurate mpg record increases of 8%, 7% & 5%, eliminating weather & seasonal changes. All engines ran smoother, quieter & with a bit of extra low rpm torque such that less downshifting was necessary to ascend hills. One car I even thought about changing to fuel injection because of a slight unevenness. However, with the switch to 100% gasoline, the engine became so smooth as to eliminate any need for fuel injection. 

Wanted an Eco Cruze, when Hyundai wouldn't give any good deals on Elantra....but Chevy wouldn't give any good deals on Eco Cruze, either. Finally, I got a good deal on 2013 Elantra sedan, $5000 less than Eco Cruze. 

MPG using 100% (ethanol free) gasoline, first tank, was 43mpg(trip computer, 41.8), with 3 people, & 3.5hours of cool downs. After 3 months, am averaging 39+mpg. My last tank was 40.7mpg(trip computer, 41.4).Maybe not exciting numbers for an Eco Cruze, but compared to any Cruze with the 1.8 liter engine, it is excellent.

I think 100% gasoline will accurize the trip computer. Ethanol, which doesn't perform well in a gasoline engine, is causing false readings in the trip computer.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

My Montana was always 10% optimistic. It didn't matter if it was running E0 or E10. GM simply hasn't figured out how to make the estimated fuel consumption figure accurate. I suspect someone else has the patent on making this 100% accurate and GM simply doesn't think it's worth paying to license the patent.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

litesong said:


> I think 100% gasoline will accurize the trip computer. Ethanol, which doesn't perform well in a gasoline engine, is causing false readings in the trip computer.


Nope, I run no ethanol gas most of the time and find no difference in the DIC readout accuracy between the two.


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

Anyone ever notice that the MPG displays from most auto manufacturers are optimistic? IMO it is done intentionally. Think about it. If you go on a test drive of the cars in the segment, and one displays a higher MPG, wouldn't that help put that car in your favor? 
Also, the 1-5 MPG optimistic has a placebo effect, especially for people who do not track their mileage (most of the car owners out there). If they made it accurate rather than optimistic, many people would think car A with an optimistic DIC gets better mileage than car B with an accurate DIC, even though in reality they may get the same MPG.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

BowtieGuy said:


> Also, the 1-5 MPG optimistic has a placebo effect, especially for people who do not track their mileage (most of the car owners out there). If they made it accurate rather than optimistic, many people would think car A with an optimistic DIC gets better mileage than car B with an accurate DIC, even though in reality they may get the same MPG.


From the reports coming in the new cruze diesel DIC is accurate to slightly low. My DIC has been high on 98% of my fill ups, 2-6MPG. once it read correctly, the other time 1MPG low. Both those instances were 100% highway ramp to ramp on flat or even slightly downhill interstate at 70mph. I would prefer my DIC to be accurate.


----------



## 567Chief (Feb 25, 2013)

All this talk about premium fuel makes me glad I bit the bullet and opted for the diesel! I hope at the time of resale I can get a little more for her to help compensate for the initial investment. I've only had her a week but I think I'm in love....


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

567Chief said:


> All this talk about premium fuel makes me glad I bit the bullet and opted for the diesel! I hope at the time of resale I can get a little more for her to help compensate for the initial investment. I've only had her a week but I think I'm in love....


GM really needed to bite the bullet and put at least mid-grade in the owner's manual. I wonder how many people are driving around in Cruzen who wonder why their car is so sluggish in the summer when switching to a higher octane is all they need to do.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

567Chief said:


> All this talk about premium fuel makes me glad I bit the bullet and opted for the diesel!


I would have a diesel now if it was offered when I bought my cruze in 2012. Price of diesel around me is typically 10-20 cents a gallon less than premium, but when gas prices increase diesel remains more stable too. Diesel & 87 octane are within 5-10 cents a gallon at every station in my state, however premium can fluctuate 60 cents in price between stations. 

Since I am paying the price for premium anyway might as well pick up 8+ mpg window sticker hwy of the diesel over my 1LT. gonna have to wait, won't trade and loose my ass or significantly increase my payment.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> GM really needed to bite the bullet and put at least mid-grade in the owner's manual. I wonder how many people are driving around in Cruzen who wonder why their car is so sluggish in the summer when switching to a higher octane is all they need to do.


Better yet have a NA direct injection 2.0-2.5L engine in all models that can actually run good in high heat without premium. Then offer an optional turbo engine that requires premium. Both should be flex fuel.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> GM really needed to bite the bullet and put at least mid-grade in the owner's manual. I wonder how many people are driving around in Cruzen who wonder why their car is so sluggish in the summer when switching to a higher octane is all they need to do.


"You are correct sir!" (Ed McMahon), but marketing would never let that happen as the competition would be all over it. As long as there are few/no complaints being logged with NHTSA, and others, it won't change unless someone can actually prove that driving a Cruze in the summer with 87 E10 is really hazardous. I have no doubt that you should run 91, or better, in a Cruze in the summer also. Good luck with getting GM/Chevy to own up to it though.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> "You are correct sir!" (Ed McMahon), but marketing would never let that happen as the competition would be all over it. As long as there are few/no complaints being logged with NHTSA, and others, it won't change unless someone can actually prove that driving a Cruze in the summer with 87 E10 is really hazardous. I have no doubt that you should run 91, or better, in a Cruze in the summer also. Good luck with getting GM/Chevy to own up to it though.


I found non US Chevy sites that flat out said that higher octane may help both performance and fuel economy. Ford does it here in the US, why can't Chevy?


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> I found non US Chevy sites that flat out said that higher octane may help both performance and fuel economy. Ford does it here in the US, why can't Chevy?


Does Ford specify something other than 87 for the non-ST Focus here?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> Does Ford specify something other than 87 for the non-ST Focus here?


Fusion and Escape and F150. Focus is not an Ecoboost 

Chevy writes/sells the car as such purely for marketing purposes. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Rocco611 (Jan 19, 2013)

cool that you have 93 octane available, here on the west coast all I see is 91 . it is about 20cents a gallon higher than 87 but my cruze eco runs much better with the higher octane. there is a slight improvement in fuel economy but not enough to offset the cost. thought about using 87 and dumping a gallon of tolulene in the tank at each fill up, but that stuff is $18 a gallon now. octane booster isn't cheap either. I did get a pilot flying J rewards card that gives me back about $3 on every other fill up.


----------



## litesong (Oct 14, 2011)

BowtieGuy said:


> Anyone ever notice that the MPG displays from most auto manufacturers are optimistic? IMO it is done intentionally.


Think the possible optimistic trip computer is due to the use of 10% ethanol blends by most people. Manufacturers have designed & built their gasoline engines to use 100% gasoline. Thus, trip computers must be calibrated to 100% gasoline, not to ethanol blends. 
I have extensive decade long records of higher mpg of 100% gasoline over 10% ethanol blends for 3 vehicles, but don't have records comparing possible inaccuracies between trip computer readings & actual mpg in vehicles. 

My own Hyundai Elantra(bought because Chevy wouldn't give good deals on Eco Cruze), runs with only 100% gasoline, & shows the trip computer to be quite accurate, while Elantra is averaging 39mpg with a high of 43mpg.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

There's an article in the newest issue of Car & Driver regarding the inaccuracies of the car computers vs. odometer/pump dial. Haven't read it yet, but will update this post when I have.

UPDATE: OK, I read the article and it includes some input from a couple of manufacturers also. It describes so many variables that affect mpg calculation that it's no wonder the vehicle computers will be off and it's usually on the high side from actual. Fuel density, summer/winter blends, brand differences, vapor recovery differences, vapor purging, expansion/contraction of the fuel tank, are all possible anomalies that affect the computation. Some cars have a calibration setting for the mpg calculation buried in the set up menus. There are two different mpg computers in my car and they always differ until you get some miles on the tank. It appears that if you really want to know, you have to do it the old fashioned way and then use it to mentally adjust what the computer tells you.


----------



## NYCruizer (Jul 10, 2013)

litesong said:


> Think the possible optimistic trip computer is due to the use of 10% ethanol blends by most people. Manufacturers have designed & built their gasoline engines to use 100% gasoline. Thus, trip computers must be calibrated to 100% gasoline, not to ethanol blends.
> I have extensive decade long records of higher mpg of 100% gasoline over 10% ethanol blends for 3 vehicles, but don't have records comparing possible inaccuracies between trip computer readings & actual mpg in vehicles.
> 
> My own Hyundai Elantra(bought because Chevy wouldn't give good deals on Eco Cruze), runs with only 100% gasoline, & shows the trip computer to be quite accurate, while Elantra is averaging 39mpg with a high of 43mpg.


More likely is the sampling rates of the trip computer - ever notice on the cruze that if you come to an abrupt stop the MPG on the DiC doesn't wind down to zero for a few moments after the car is at a complete rest? Ever notice the display seems to update at a half second (500 ms)? An extensive decade of records of trip computers isn't woth much because the technology has changed - I don't know the processor speed of the ECU on a Cruze, but the processor speed of most cars back 10 years ago was around 25Mhz, 10 years ago many cars weren't even on a CAN bus. Current cars are on faster networks but the amount of inputs have increased, so slow sampling is still a factor.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

obermd said:


> I found non US Chevy sites that flat out said that higher octane may help both performance and fuel economy. Ford does it here in the US, why can't Chevy?


That's not their job to be honest. The owners manual specifically says "87 Octane required." They are not obligated to "recommend" a fuel. The car can run on 87 octane, so that is what is used because it will sell the most cars. That is all that matters. It is up to the consumer to use the fuel they feel is best for their engine.



litesong said:


> Think the possible optimistic trip computer is due to the use of 10% ethanol blends by most people. Manufacturers have designed & built their gasoline engines to use 100% gasoline. Thus, trip computers must be calibrated to 100% gasoline, not to ethanol blends.
> I have extensive decade long records of higher mpg of 100% gasoline over 10% ethanol blends for 3 vehicles, but don't have records comparing possible inaccuracies between trip computer readings & actual mpg in vehicles.
> 
> My own Hyundai Elantra(bought because Chevy wouldn't give good deals on Eco Cruze), runs with only 100% gasoline, & shows the trip computer to be quite accurate, while Elantra is averaging 39mpg with a high of 43mpg.


The trip computer is inaccurate for reasons other than ethanol. Usually deceleration fuel cutoff is the main culprit. Manufactures have _*NOT*_ designed & built engines for 100% gasoline only. Quite the contrary. Every North American automaker has their vehicles engineered to run on E10, because that is what we run in the United States and have been for over a decade. Since U.S. and Canadian vehicles share the same production facilities, Canadian vehicles run on E10 as well. Take the ethanol hate somewhere else, because it is not supported by facts at all.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I don't think DFCO is the reason the car's trip computer can't figure out how much gas you've burned. My Montana didn't have DFCO and it was always almost exactly 10% optimistic. GM is using an estimation algorithm that doesn't handle variable engine loads very well. Chrysler products, as much as I can't stand them, are nearly dead on for their fuel consumption, and thus MPG numbers.


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

obermd said:


> I don't think DFCO is the reason the car's trip computer can't figure out how much gas you've burned. My Montana didn't have DFCO and it was always almost exactly 10% optimistic. GM is using an estimation algorithm that doesn't handle variable engine loads very well. Chrysler products, as much as I can't stand them, are nearly dead on for their fuel consumption, and thus MPG numbers.


Exactly.. it is an estimation


----------

