# Do your Cruze 1.4 a favor - try Premium gas!!



## AndyK (Jul 28, 2014)

I tried premium gas this morning - and am amazed at how much faster, smoother, and quieter the engine is! Worth the extra cost, to me anyway!! 

Try it, you wont go back to regular!!


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Think I read this somewhere before..... 

My car only seems to need premium when above 75F outside. Once the winter temperatures set in a month from now, my car will probably only get 89 octane midgrade until next summer.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Lol yep.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Only thing any of my vehicles get is ethanol free 91 octane top tier fuel. Made this decision when ethanol did over a thousand buck parts only damage to my Supra.

Even an E10 vehicle like the Cruze runs a lot better on real gas, still the great possibility of getting a bad mix. Whoever said that alcohol and gas doesn't mix didn't know they were talking about ethanol in gas.

Both ignition and valve timing in the 1.4 L are affected by the grade of fuel used, a knock detector determines these parameters. Low octane means a lot less advance, poorer performance and fuel economy. Same bad effects as putting junk food in your body.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

AndyK said:


> I tried premium gas this morning - and am amazed at how much faster, smoother, and quieter the engine is! Worth the extra cost, to me anyway!!
> 
> Try it, you wont go back to regular!!


Definitely a plus. It's all I use.


----------



## billyhime (Mar 17, 2012)

So I made the switch last week, Sams club usually has awesome fuel prices so it wasn't bad for me to switch over price wise. Car does all the things you said. Happy I made the switch. Makes me feel like I'm treating my car better with better petrol.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

You should see some improvement in fuel economy as well.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

AndyK said:


> I tried premium gas this morning - and am amazed at how much faster, smoother, and quieter the engine is! Worth the extra cost, to me anyway!!
> 
> Try it, you wont go back to regular!!


This came to light back during the 2011 model year and it has been repeated every year since. I recall reading that the 1.4L turbo motor was designed to run on 91 E10, but marketing pressure forced published documentation (and a redone tune) to run on 87 E10 to be competitive with the rest of the non-performance compact car segment.


----------



## dhpnet (Mar 2, 2014)

I also noticed that it makes a big difference. I have been keeping track of my fuel in a spreadsheet. In 23 fill ups and about 6 months the Premium has only cost a little over $40 more than I would have paid for regular. Definitely worth the money.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

NickD said:


> Only thing any of my vehicles get is ethanol free 91 octane top tier fuel. Made this decision when ethanol did over a thousand buck parts only damage to my Supra.
> 
> Even an E10 vehicle like the Cruze runs a lot better on real gas, still the great possibility of getting a bad mix. Whoever said that alcohol and gas doesn't mix didn't know they were talking about ethanol in gas.


How would you know the cruze runs better on no ethanol 91E0 fuel? First statement you made was you have never ran ethanol fuel in the cruze. Fact: The cruze runs WAY better with 93E10 premium VS 91E0 premium especially when above 80F outside. 

The cruze fuel system is not a crappy toyota one from 20+ years ago, its more than capable of running even higher ethanol concentrations without any corrosion issues. Remember Chevy is number 1 in flexfuel vehicles, toyota still doesn't make any. 

A warning to others, if you love your cruze DO NOT put 87E0 in it! My car and another user both experienced severe knock with this fuel. This crap is just made for lawn mowers, chain saws and boat engines, not modern cars.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> This came to light back during the 2011 model year and it has been repeated every year since. I recall reading that the 1.4L turbo motor was designed to run on 91 E10, but marketing pressure forced published documentation (and a redone tune) to run on 87 E10 to be competitive with the rest of the non-performance compact car segment.


Yep, the 2.0T vehicles are priced to the point requiring 91 octane is accepted over us economy class car owners.


spacedout said:


> Think I read this somewhere before.....
> 
> My car only seems to need premium when above 75F outside. Once the winter temperatures set in a month from now, my car will probably only get 89 octane midgrade until next summer.


Mine hated it in the winter as well. Stock and .032 gap on stock plugs.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Merc6 said:


> Yep, the 2.0T vehicles are priced to the point requiring 91 octane is accepted over us economy class car owners.
> 
> Mine hated it in the winter as well. Stock and .032 gap on stock plugs.


Instead I accepted the 2.0TD


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

money_man said:


> Instead I accepted the 2.0TD
> 
> 
> Sent from the sexy electrician


Yeah, that price is pretty much set across all what would be considered competition. I wish it was out and in a manual when I got my car. 2LT trim and MPG benefits.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I never even tried the 1.4T, I do regret that decision but the ltz's go for $1300 more than the diesel in Halifax, Nova Scotia 


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Here the Diesels go more than the LTZ and are hidden in the back row with the same color LS models.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

42 year went by since the introduction of unleaded gas. No arguments here against getting rid of lead. With some people that lead passes through the blood brain barrier making the stupid and highly aggressive that to me explains our leadership. Intelligent people don't want to run for office.

But nevertheless, unleaded gas was never intended for an internal combustion engine, its flame temperature is around 500 to 700*F than leaded gas that will burn out valves and even put holes in pistons, plus even melt aluminum heads. After 42 years of this stuff, zero effort has been used to even develop a fuel that can burn at a lower temperature.

Vehicles made before the mid 30's did not require leaded fuels, low compression, and 2,000 rpm was the about the maximum engine speed, most of these engines would even run on kerosene. It was the push for faster cars, higher speeds that created the need for the quickest solution they could find was to add lead to gasoline to lower combustion chamber temperatures.

One cure for this was to spray water in with the fuel and used extensively during WW II for high performance engines, but considered too complicated for the common users. So exhaust gas recirculation was adopted it. At maximum speeds as high as 30% exhaust gas recirculation was reqiured that effectively decreases performance by this same amount.

In effect a 1 L engine is only a 0.7 L engine, and if you do have EGR problems, your engine will be toast. Ceramics were considered that could withstand these greater combustion temperatures, but still have the disadvantage of generating excess amounts of NOx's or smog as it is called. Not very good for our health. And its for this same reason that lean burning engines are out of the question, need that richer mixture also besides EGR to keep combustion chambers cool enough.

Plus using a fuel with a high carbon content is not good, very poor heating value, but makes a mess inside of the engine also requiring frequent oil changes plus fouled injectors and spark plugs. Using a fuel like natural gas or methane would cure most of these problems. And since we are finding an excess of natural gas, more talk about exporting it rather than using it.

All this stuff came to light way back in the 60's when we finally realized our automobiles are killing us and a major effort was made by intelligent engineers to get rid of the carbon in gasoline, but dealing with a lead soaked congress or idiots to put it more simply. So the catalytic converter was introduced to limit the amount of highly cancerous HC's. But excessive carbon dioxide wasn't even considered.

Present emission controls are worthless until they reach proper operating temperature, the cure for this was to add oxygen to fuels so they would improve warm up time. Don't know about you, but experiencing a 25% decrease in fuel economy using so called winter gas. And really only effective for the first few miles of operation, but still not an effective cure.

Still garbage in resulting in garbage out and has been this way for over a hundred years. Plus making our vehicles a lot more complicated and expensive where the average person can't even repair them like they use to.

Do we have the technology today to cure these problems? The answer is yes. Are we doing anything about it? The answer is no? Still have idiots running our country.

What brain came up with using our food supply to run our SUV's? Trying to solve one problem by creating a bunch of new ones. Writing your congressman on these key very important issues is just like talking to a wall.


----------



## Ralli (Sep 25, 2012)

I have only ever put premium in my car , from the very first day , and i've never looked back. The fuel economy is awesome, is now on a average of 6.6L / 100km and keeps going down ... 

Once (and only once) I put regular in, only because I was being a cheap skate, and I regret ever doing it .. She didn't like it to much and it just chewed through it .. 

Premium is the way to go in my opinion ............. 

:th_dblthumb2:


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

NickD said:


> What brain came up with using our food supply to run our SUV's?


My understanding is it took allot more money to come up with a better solution, that solution is here now. Sounds like quite a few more of these ethanol plants are being built. Only a matter of time before corn based ethanol is a thing of the past. 

Fuel your car with farm waste — first cellulosic ethanol plant opens - Fortune


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Ya'll making me feel bad since I've found no discernible difference. Tried Sams club 91 and Top Tier BP 93.

Time to recheck the dwell, lighter advance springs, lower the float and increase the cam ratio of the accelerator pump.
I'd weight my float but junior took my float scale to Colorado for some reason :huh:


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

BP and Costco are top tier and you need to run a few tanks to make sure all the 87 is gone and not just diluted.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Diesel Dan said:


> Ya'll making me feel bad since I've found no discernible difference. Tried Sams club 91 and Top Tier BP 93.
> 
> Time to recheck the dwell, lighter advance springs, lower the float and increase the cam ratio of the accelerator pump.
> I'd weight my float but junior took my float scale to Colorado for some reason :huh:


Are you working on a 1930 Olds? Or similar?

Ha, my 82 454 is this way except for the dwell, got rid of my distributor tester a long time ago when it was still worth some money and used my spark advance timing light for those springs. With the carb, used my CO2 tester to maximize the readings for the best AF ratio by playing with the carb jets, but don't tell Al Gore I did this. Sure this idiot would want a lower CO2 reading.

All in all, this improved the fuel economy from 8 mpg to 15 mpg if my wife lets me drive it at 55 mph where the engine torque is at peak. But makes me drive it at 65-70 mph to stay with traffic where it drops to 12, but still better than 6.

Can't do this anymore, a silly-con diode does this, but can keep the carbon buildup clean and play with the spark plug gap. Don't give a darn what the rest of you do, 26 mils is best.


----------



## David1 (Sep 16, 2011)

No difference in mine no matter what the octane or brand.


----------



## Ajn (Jul 13, 2014)

I think it is going to depend a lot on location and driving tendency. In Arizona with typical day time highs in the 110s there was a massive increase in the overall driving experience when I got new plugs, properly gapped them, and started running 91 (best I can get in AZ).


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Ajn said:


> I think it is going to depend a lot on location and driving tendency. In Arizona with typical day time highs in the 110s there was a massive increase in the overall driving experience when I got new plugs, properly gapped them, and started running 91 (best I can get in AZ).


Haha, here's another experience from a TC car in Arizona!

http://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65698


----------



## GRIMland (Jun 1, 2014)

I try to get 91 non-oxy too, but the prices fluctuate on the ethanol fuels so much that sometimes it's not feasible, because the non-oxy pump price hasn't changed once all summer!

The 87 and 89 E10 have been as low as $3.29 this summer but 91 E0 always stayed at $3.89. At that big of a price gap the added mpg from the non-oxy doesn't make up for the added cost. I once calculated the break even point but it's been awhile


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

I totally understand why people see a difference running premium fuel and do recommend trying it.
What I am doing is pointing out that not every car will respond the same. For what ever reason our car doesn't show much, if any, change running premium fuel.

Nick,
So what you're telling me is my Cruze doesn't have these items?
Stop the insanity!


----------



## Ajn (Jul 13, 2014)

Diesel Dan said:


> I totally understand why people see a difference running premium fuel and do recommend trying it.
> What I am doing is pointing out that not every car will respond the same. For what ever reason our car doesn't show much, if any, change running premium fuel.


I don't think anyone said your assertion was incorrect. It will definitely vary based on a lot of factors


----------



## cdncruze (Dec 9, 2012)

I tried a tank of 93 in the southern States as 91 wasn't available. Bloody awful performance and felt bogged down. The engine is calibrated for 87 so I switched back.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

cdncruze said:


> I tried a tank of 93 in the southern States as 91 wasn't available. Bloody awful performance and felt bogged down. The engine is calibrated for 87 so I switched back.


Wat


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

cdncruze said:


> I tried a tank of 93 in the southern States as 91 wasn't available. Bloody awful performance and felt bogged down. The engine is calibrated for 87 so I switched back.


More likely water or too much ethanol in the gas. Our engines are designed for 91E0 - 91E15. Its only by detuning and aggressive knock retard that that the Cruze can run on 87 octane.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Diesel Dan said:


> I totally understand why people see a difference running premium fuel and do recommend trying it.
> What I am doing is pointing out that not every car will respond the same. For what ever reason our car doesn't show much, if any, change running premium fuel.
> 
> Nick,
> ...





> Time to recheck the dwell, lighter advance springs, lower the float and increase the cam ratio of the accelerator pump.
> I'd weight my float but junior took my float scale to Colorado for some reason


Maybe yours does, made the false assumption that all Cruze's are made like what your statement implies. Only float my Cruze has is for the fuel sender.


----------



## hificruzer226 (Mar 27, 2013)

I always run 93 even my cars first sill up at the dealer when I took delivery, the only time car hasn't seen 93 is when Lordstown ohio put some in.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Higher octane gas has a greater flash point then a low octane gas. With low octane fuels, the heat of compression can ignite the fuel called detonation. With higher octane fuels, can fire them earlier to increase the length of the power stroke for better performance. Without detonation and lower octane gas, the firing has to be done much later. Knock sensor determines this.

Ever here of premium diesel fuel? Really not needed, because the fuel in not in the compression stroke. Injector opens at exactly the correct time injecting the precise amount of fuel. No problems with detonation nor preignition. But sure requires a high compression ratio to get enough heat to ignite the fuel.

So got me to wonder why they can't do this with gasoline, but with lower compression and insufficient heat, besides the injector, would also need the spark plug to complete the cycle. But this stuff is still an art, and the only way to find out is to try it. Lower octane fuels are far more prevalent at the refinery.

Another culprit in the Cruze is the turbo itself, effectively drastically increases the compression ratio, requiring even a great need for a high octane fuel.


----------



## Nano-Skiff (Aug 25, 2014)

I'm on my first tank of 93. Cant tell yet.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Nano-Skiff said:


> I'm on my first tank of 93. Cant tell yet.


How low was your tank? Give it 2 tanks.


----------



## Psychomidgit (Jun 9, 2013)

Have always put Shell V-Power since the first tank and never have issues with it. Chevron premium is the only other type I use in my other vehicles.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 10, 2013)

I've put 89 in my Cruze from the start. We ran 87 in the Wife's Cruze for probably close to the first year she had it until I read on here about using a higher octane fuel. After we switched hers to 89 there was an increase in fuel economy, but not a whole lot in performance, but then again hers has never ran as good as mine does for some reason.

I've been kicking around running 93 in my car for a while now, and I think I'll give it a shot starting tomorrow. I had a 2011 6.2L Silverado before the Cruze, and I had to run at least 91 in it so paying the extra cost isn't a big deal to me.


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

Yep, mine ran better on 91+ octane E10 before tuning. Better performance up hills.


----------



## hificruzer226 (Mar 27, 2013)

Some people have different qualities of gas based on region and season, its more than just octane most of the time. I am lucky my area has really high grade fuels they even have 95 here but its too far for me to fill up.


----------



## Nano-Skiff (Aug 25, 2014)

Merc6 said:


> How low was your tank? Give it 2 tanks.



Pretty low. I added 10 gallons. I'll give it a few tanks anyways. If I cant tell then I'll switch back.


----------



## Arcticat (Feb 16, 2012)

Everbody has a different opinion, I run only Shell 87 octane (top tier gas) also use Mobil 1 oil. I get 40 plus miles on the highway. I do NOT use the dic from the car, its always shows more miles per gal then what is actually used. I use actual miles traveled and gallons used from the pump itself. I have a eco so when the pump shuts off, I never try to put more in it. I set my plugs at .028. The car runs great--just my opinion--Mike


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Nano-Skiff said:


> Pretty low. I added 10 gallons. I'll give it a few tanks anyways. If I cant tell then I'll switch back.


test the 2nd tank WOT up hill in hot weather. Then if you try 87 again do the same both with A/C on. How hot is it getting down there?



Daryl said:


> I've put 89 in my Cruze from the start. We ran 87 in the Wife's Cruze for probably close to the first year she had it until I read on here about using a higher octane fuel. After we switched hers to 89 there was an increase in fuel economy, but not a whole lot in performance, but then again hers has never ran as good as mine does for some reason.
> 
> I've been kicking around running 93 in my car for a while now, and I think I'll give it a shot starting tomorrow. I had a 2011 6.2L Silverado before the Cruze, and I had to run at least 91 in it so paying the extra cost isn't a big deal to me.


89 may not show a huge difference, try 91/93. Then agan my car was never a fan of PA on and off turnpike gas fill ups. My car seems to hate sunoco the most.



hificruzer226 said:


> Some people have different qualities of gas based on region and season, its more than just octane most of the time. I am lucky my area has really high grade fuels they even have 95 here but its too far for me to fill up.


This. A Top tier gas station not located in an area where 93 is often used or is seriously overpriced will sit up and get stale. I have 4 stations I fill from in this area only unless I can't help it. I overfill here to avoid fill ups from PA turnpike in route to NJ as my car hates it almost as bad as 87.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 10, 2013)

I filled mine up this morning with 93. 91 isn't available in my town just 93. I'll run it a while before I decide if it helps. I'll probably notice it more in the summer I think.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Daryl said:


> I'll probably notice it more in the summer I think.


Definitely.

In the colder months, I can tell no difference between 89 and 93.



> My car seems to hate sunoco the most.


Lol, that's mostly what I run.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I avoid Sunoco. Every time I've used Sunoco in the past I've had to get my fuel system cleaned out.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Daryl said:


> I filled mine up this morning with 93. 91 isn't available in my town just 93. I'll run it a while before I decide if it helps. I'll probably notice it more in the summer I think.


For most(mostly untuned) they run 91/93 in the hotter months and switch back to 87 in the blistering cold. My car hated 87 at any temp, ethanol blend or lack of and any season. I'm coming from a 17 mpg 93 tuned car to the Cruze so the price paid isn't that much of an initial offset to me. 

I seen 91 on the turnpike there and that's about it. I can't find it anywhere else. Most pumps I seen are 3 grades or the 4th is diesel with separate larger nozzle.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

I normally run 87. I switched to 91 for 3 tanks in a row this summer. No difference in drivability or fuel economy. 

Both grades were zero ethanol so perhaps that may the issue.


----------



## pL2014 (Dec 29, 2013)

I've been doing a little experiment. Since May, I've tracked my tanks via the odometer/pump. I've run 4 tanks of each. I started out as 3 in a row of each grade, and then my last 3 tanks, I've run one of each. I buy Shell gas. The %City/Hwy split on all these tanks was between 55-70% city. I also bought 4 tanks on a long road trip in June that I'm not including in these numbers as they were 100% highway and I didn't buy any 87 on that trip. My Cruze is basically a commuter car to/from work.

Finally, I recorded the prices of all 3 grades at every fillup, so the average prices are for the entire range of the experiment.

My stats: 87 Octane, 31.16 mpg, $3.682/gal avg, $0.1182/mile
89 Octane, 31.48 mpg, $3.831/gal avg, $0.1217/mile
93 Octane, 31.75 mpg, $4.028/gal avg, $0.1268/mile

For me, the subtle mileage increase isn't statistically significant and does not justify the extra cost of the gas (actually costs me slightly more per mile). I feel like the car runs better and is more fun to drive with 89 so that's what I've settled on. I can afford the extra .4 cents per mile.  I can't tell the difference between 89 and 93. I'm not 100% sure that the difference between 89 and 87 isn't completely in my head either.


----------



## Davep (Apr 14, 2014)

mcg75 said:


> I normally run 87. I switched to 91 for 3 tanks in a row this summer. No difference in drivability or fuel economy.
> 
> Both grades were zero ethanol so perhaps that may the issue.


Where did you get zero ethanol 87 in Canada?


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Our 87 to 93 gap isn't as large in most areas(unless you add diesel to that spread). Every now and then you find those gaps here on gas and I try to avoid them to prevent stale gas.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> Our 87 to 93 gap isn't as large in most areas(unless you add diesel to that spread). Every now and then you find those gaps here on gas and I try to avoid them to prevent stale gas.


Hah I wish. 

Closest shell to me. Freaking ripoff.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

In most areas* near us here. The **** is Diesel cheaper than 93? That would totally sway me to get a diesel over the Eco gas if I still lived in the DMV area.


----------



## mcg75 (Mar 5, 2012)

Davep said:


> Where did you get zero ethanol 87 in Canada?


Shell is ethanol free here in Moncton. Petro Canada supposedly but they don't advertise it like the Shell stations do.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Saw this today near my house.
87 E10 = $3.19
93 E10 = $3.49
Diesel = $3.79
You can do the math. I don't have to.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> Saw this today near my house.
> 87 E10 = $3.19
> 93 E10 = $3.49
> Diesel = $3.79
> You can do the math. I don't have to.


Lee and Harvard would be like 
$3.19 87 
$3.49 89
$3.79 93

No diesel on this corner.


----------



## YYC-LT (Aug 30, 2014)

Just filled my first tank of premium (91) in my 1.4T 6M. Might be psychological but I swear my car is running better.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

YYC-LT said:


> Just filled my first tank of premium (91) in my 1.4T 6M. Might be psychological but I swear my car is running better.


Give it a few tanks and check your MPG. I usually erase trip 1 and also use Fuely app to track. Test it out in stop and go and with a/c on in 1st gear from a light or stop sign.


----------



## BlueTopaz (Aug 25, 2012)

David1 said:


> No difference in mine no matter what the octane or brand.



Same here.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

BlueTopaz said:


> Same here.


If you ran a few tanks and had no difference then you may be driving out of boost most of the time. Just pick a reputable gas station at this point.


----------



## RaiderDan925 (Aug 28, 2014)

I always use 91 gas and it does feel better. Shes a 2014 LT1 I have about 3000 miles on her and been using 91 most of the time, sometimes even throw in an octane booster. Lol try that if u wanna get some pep!


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

RaiderDan925 said:


> I always use 91 gas and it does feel better. Shes a 2014 LT1 I have about 3000 miles on her and been using 91 most of the time, sometimes even throw in an octane booster. Lol try that if u wanna get some pep!


What octane booster are you running? 

STP
NOS
Gumout
104+
Lucas
The outlaw
Prolong
Zmax
Prestone
Stabil
Marvel


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Ha, my response to a spark knock problem.

"Had problems like this from buying ethanol gas with no ethanol in it or very little. And not pre-ignition, but detonation.

Stopped at my favorite Mobil station this morning for a fillup, was shocked to see no more ethanol, even 87 was ethanol free. Maybe a passing fad. Price of corn was $1.56 a bushel, skyrocketed to over 9 bucks, now down to under 4 bucks. Farmers need 5 bucks to break even, so are hurting. Got rid of their cows to grow corn.

Not sure what's going on, but still stuck with 91 octane."

Excessive carbon buildup and also be a problem by not using top tier gasoline. At one time, this was not a problem, even premium gas only cost 2 cents a gallon extra. Sure a mess today, really have to shop around for good gas.


----------



## jandree22 (Sep 19, 2011)

In my area, 89 usually only costs 10¢ more, 93 is 20¢ above that.

Example:
87 $3.35
89 $3.45 (+10¢)
93 $3.65 (+20¢)

In my Fuelly I haven't found any meaningful evidence showing 93 gets me better mileage than 89. Starting with my next tank and through next May I'm going back to 89 to bring down my cost/mile. While it could be in my head, 93 does _seem _to run a touch smoother and I still plan to run it in the heat of summer with A/C.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't even know where to get 0E fuel... My cruzes do just fine on the regular stuff that I buy, either at Costco, Sams, or occasionally a BP. Maybe I should stomp on it more often, drive in the turbo all the time, pay higher prices for fuel?

I love my Cruzes, but I don't really consider them a hot rod by any stretch of the imagination. Now, my old Omni GLH felt like a real rocket ship back in the day with less HP, it never got no high octane fuel either, didn't seem to need it from what I could tell. 

But anyway, if you guys feel the difference and want to spend the extra $$ go right ahead, but I bought my Cruze mostly for it's economy factor, and for it's ability to go around corners as good or better then any other car I've ever owned. Not for it's acceleration and need for high octane fuel. If you go around a corner fast enough, there's little need to accelerate coming out, so just don't use the brakes as much is my motto.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

jandree22 said:


> In my Fuelly I haven't found any meaningful evidence showing 93 gets me better mileage than 89. Starting with my next tank and through next May I'm going back to 89 to bring down my cost/mile. While it could be in my head, 93 does _seem _to run a touch smoother and I still plan to run it in the heat of summer with A/C.


My car would 100% agree with you.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jandree22 said:


> In my Fuelly I haven't found any meaningful evidence showing 93 gets me better mileage than 89.


First few years ownership I ran a mix of 89 octane and 91/93 premium. I had much greater swings in my MPG then, I also attribute never getting below 36mpg this summer(since may) on any fill up because I have only using premium. This is easy to see if I click the 'chart all fuel-ups' graph on my fuelly account. 

My driving route is very hilly with at least a 1/4 of my driving at very high engine load driving uphill. I suspect actually needing engine power and putting things under load will trip the knock sensor and pull timing much more often than what most peoples driving route does which would make these differences much more apparent. 



iggy said:


> But anyway, if you guys feel the difference and want to spend the extra $$ go right ahead, but I bought my Cruze mostly for it's economy factor, and for it's ability to go around corners as good or better then any other car I've ever owned.


Don't overlook cost per mile, it actually means more to your pocketbook than MPG. Sure cheaper fuel will usually win this battle, but that's not the case with hot summer temperatures and a turbo engine. 

The Ultimate Hot Weather MPG Test - Regular vs. Premium - 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ Long-Term Road Test


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

24.5 and/or 28.8 MPG from a Cruze LTZ? what in the heck are they doing , racing? I've never seen anything bellow 30 MPG from my Cruze driving, most of the time I get around 33MPG on every day driving.


----------



## nick993 (Dec 30, 2013)

I run 91 and stop and go a lot. Get about 25-26. And by stop and go I mean stop and get up to 45-55 then have to stop again a mile ahead. It's usually over 100 degrees here and the a/c is on all the time. My morning commute is usually 88-92 degrees by 8-9:00 in the morning.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

nick993 said:


> I run 91 and stop and go a lot. Get about 25-26. And by stop and go I mean stop and get up to 45-55 then have to stop again a mile ahead. It's usually over 100 degrees here and the a/c is on all the time. My morning commute is usually 88-92 degrees by 8-9:00 in the morning.
> 
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


I've had 100% city or short trip driving in similar conditions with similar tank MPG. Either extremely hot or extremely cold outside.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

iggy said:


> 24.5 and/or 28.8 MPG from a Cruze LTZ? what in the heck are they doing , racing? I've never seen anything bellow 30 MPG from my Cruze driving, most of the time I get around 33MPG on every day driving.


That was also a 2011 LTZ, which had 2 MPG lower ratings than the 2012 and later.


----------



## RaiderDan925 (Aug 28, 2014)

Merc6 said:


> What octane booster are you running?
> 
> STP
> NOS
> ...


For some reason I just can't help myself to not grab the Nos lol


----------



## blueflippy (Nov 19, 2012)

Reading all of this back and forth on octanes, I wonder what quality gasoline folks are putting into the Cruze turbo engines. Is there water in the mix? My experience is that 89 or greater octane eliminates turbo lag. That's the slight hesitation you feel on take-off using 87 octane. As far as mileage, it's negligible. 91 octane, no alcohol, seems to be the best as far as smooth idling.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 10, 2013)

I've noticed something today after running my car for a week now on 93. I filled it up this morning, and made about a 40 mile round trip. 

On the way home I passed two different cars at two different times. Usually I put the car in manual shift mode to pass because in auto I can hold the pedal clean to the floor, and the car will NOT down shift past 5th gear on it's own. My Wife's Cruze does the same thing so I know it's not just my Cruze. 

Well today on both passing attempts the car made two downshifts on it's own down into 4th gear to give me the power I wanted, and I never tried to make it do it by putting the pedal down hard it just shifted down on it's own. I looked over at the Wife in shock, and said wow this thing has never done that before. I have to think 93 definitely makes the car work better after this.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Daryl said:


> Usually I put the car in manual shift mode to pass because in auto I can hold the pedal clean to the floor, and the car will NOT down shift past 5th gear on it's own. My Wife's Cruze does the same thing so I know it's not just my Cruze.


My 2012 auto is not like that at all. In D anything more than 1/4 pedal at highway speed will drop to 4th gear readily.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 10, 2013)

spacedout said:


> My 2012 auto is not like that at all. In D anything more than 1/4 pedal at highway speed will drop to 4th gear readily.


Even when you ran 87 & 89?


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Jim Frye said:


> Saw this today near my house.
> 87 E10 = $3.19
> 93 E10 = $3.49
> Diesel = $3.79
> You can do the math. I don't have to.


Saw this today near my house.
87 E10 = $2.99
93 E10 = $3.29
Diesel = $3.79

Diesel is the same price it was on the 12th. Winter blend gas has arrived in Toledo.


----------



## jandree22 (Sep 19, 2011)

Cheers to $2.99. Jeers to winter blend.


----------



## gz9gjg (Sep 18, 2014)

My '98 and '02 SAAB turbos called for premium, but I generally used midgrade. The only problem I ever noticed was the car would hesitate on a hard acceleration, when the injectors got dirty. Easy to take care of: every 5,000 miles, I would run a bottle of fuel injector cleaner in the last tank of gas before changing the oil. 

Every car forum has devotees of premium; but I have never experienced much difference in performance or fuel economy. The improved performance I get from a manual transmission probably masks a lot of the issues I would notice with an automatic.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

gz9gjg said:


> My '98 and '02 SAAB turbos called for premium, but I generally used midgrade. The only problem I ever noticed was the car would hesitate on a hard acceleration, when the injectors got dirty. Easy to take care of: every 5,000 miles, I would run a bottle of fuel injector cleaner in the last tank of gas before changing the oil.
> 
> Every car forum has devotees of premium; but I have never experienced much difference in performance or fuel economy. The improved performance I get from a manual transmission probably masks a lot of the issues I would notice with an automatic.


 The opposite for us. The manual rpms are lower than the auto at take off so we would get the 87 octane blues harder in how weather and A/C on. I'm not even in a southern state and my car protests 87 year round. With a 93 octane, tune even 91 acts questionable. Swapping out the stock plugs also in combination of higher than 87 works wonders. The engine was rated for 91 but has safties to be 87 "friendly" 2.0T are marked 91 since they come in mostly premium lineup vehicles to begin with the exception of the Malibu.


----------

