How long since the last Premium fuel vs Regular fuel question?
09-10-2012, 08:18 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-08-2012
Location: Vancouver. B.C.
Posts: 143
How long since the last Premium fuel vs Regular fuel question?
Hey all.
I was wondering if you folks have suggestions on which fuel to use, and what if any economy/performance results you noticed.
The Chev dealer we bought our LT 2.4 at said that it only takes regular. It was me pointing out to him that the owners manual states that Premium is recommended but not required.
Our HHR has regular in it, and the dealer says that's all they ever put in it, but could not tell me what the previous owner ran.
My plan was to run regular for a few tanks, and do a few milage checks, and then perhaps try a few tanks of the expensive stuff.
Gas is 1.34 a litre here in Vancouver, and premium is about 8 cents more a litre than regular......
That's about 5.07 a gallon and 5.68 a gallon I think......without any exchange rate......What a joke that is eh?
Basically, I don't want to spend the extra money if it isn't worth it.
Thoughts?
I was wondering if you folks have suggestions on which fuel to use, and what if any economy/performance results you noticed.
The Chev dealer we bought our LT 2.4 at said that it only takes regular. It was me pointing out to him that the owners manual states that Premium is recommended but not required.
Our HHR has regular in it, and the dealer says that's all they ever put in it, but could not tell me what the previous owner ran.
My plan was to run regular for a few tanks, and do a few milage checks, and then perhaps try a few tanks of the expensive stuff.
Gas is 1.34 a litre here in Vancouver, and premium is about 8 cents more a litre than regular......
That's about 5.07 a gallon and 5.68 a gallon I think......without any exchange rate......What a joke that is eh?
Basically, I don't want to spend the extra money if it isn't worth it.
Thoughts?
09-10-2012, 09:00 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-19-2010
Location: Buffalo ny
Posts: 1,529
Breadfan X2. 91 or 93 octane will net you better fuel economy, but it costs more...I used to run 91 or higher in my old 2.4l. It was probably all mental, but it felt smoother running, and had smoother cold starts
09-10-2012, 09:57 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-04-2010
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 458
It will run better. Mileage and power will be higher...I logged it several times with hpt and picked up a lot of kr on 87 and almost none on a 87/93 mix. The premium will cost a bit more, but you will get a return on it. At least run mid.
09-12-2012, 09:23 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-19-2008
Location: Los Alamos, NM
Posts: 129
This is far from scientific, but if you look at my mpg graph here:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-l...vehicleid=5460
The first two mpg measurements were done driving my car on the freeway back home to NM (purchased in AZ) averaging 72 mph. The first tank was almost all 87 octane because the seller filled it for me (great guy!) and he was like many here who assumed premium didn't make enough difference to matter. (The reason I say "almost all" is because when I got the car, before I got on the road, I stopped and topped it off to ensure a similar fill as the next time...yeah, I'm obsessive about mpg measurements...but it took less than half a gallon.)
The second tank was with a mixture of 87 (~4.5 gallons left in the tank when I refilled) and 11.8 gallons of 91 (the highest we can get in the southwest). The improvement, ((34.86 mpg - 31.34 mpg) / 31.34 mpg) x 100 = 11.2%, is more than enough to pay for the octane price difference.
Add to that the fact that you're probably getting a little more power and a smoother running engine and I think premium is well worth it.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-l...vehicleid=5460
The first two mpg measurements were done driving my car on the freeway back home to NM (purchased in AZ) averaging 72 mph. The first tank was almost all 87 octane because the seller filled it for me (great guy!) and he was like many here who assumed premium didn't make enough difference to matter. (The reason I say "almost all" is because when I got the car, before I got on the road, I stopped and topped it off to ensure a similar fill as the next time...yeah, I'm obsessive about mpg measurements...but it took less than half a gallon.)
The second tank was with a mixture of 87 (~4.5 gallons left in the tank when I refilled) and 11.8 gallons of 91 (the highest we can get in the southwest). The improvement, ((34.86 mpg - 31.34 mpg) / 31.34 mpg) x 100 = 11.2%, is more than enough to pay for the octane price difference.
Add to that the fact that you're probably getting a little more power and a smoother running engine and I think premium is well worth it.
09-12-2012, 09:32 PM
#8
Platinum Member
Join Date: 05-09-2006
Location: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 6,805
I've done extensive Xcountry testing of fuels in my HHR. I determined the 91 + octane fuels were just a "wee" bit better than the midgrade 89, but not enough to rationalize the cost difference. So I've stuck with 89 over the past year or so.
Where I really noticed the mileage difference is in "pure" gas vs. oxygenated. Sometimes as much as 4-5 miles per gallon. Remarkably SOMTIMES I observed better fuel mileage from a no name (purchased because there was no other choice) than a brand name or top tier. Probaly because it was not oxygenated/ethanolized.
Where I really noticed the mileage difference is in "pure" gas vs. oxygenated. Sometimes as much as 4-5 miles per gallon. Remarkably SOMTIMES I observed better fuel mileage from a no name (purchased because there was no other choice) than a brand name or top tier. Probaly because it was not oxygenated/ethanolized.
11-07-2012, 05:38 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-19-2008
Location: Los Alamos, NM
Posts: 129
Where I really noticed the mileage difference is in "pure" gas vs. oxygenated. Sometimes as much as 4-5 miles per gallon. Remarkably SOMTIMES I observed better fuel mileage from a no name (purchased because there was no other choice) than a brand name or top tier. Probaly because it was not oxygenated/ethanolized.
