Premium vs Regular Fuel

[adam728]

Yeah I misread the numbers it was 0 to 100 mph that was 16 seconds on reg and 14.1 on premium, so the four cyl GM would probably beat it to 100 mph.

Again, easy to fact check, rather than just make random claims. Car and Driver tested the 2.7T Silverado at 18.2 seconds 0-100.

2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 2.7T Four-Cylinder: Capable but Thirsty

It tows more than you'd expect but also drinks more fuel than you'd expect.

www.caranddriver.com

I don't know why you don't want to accept that a 3.5L twin turbo V6 is faster than a 2.7L turbo 4 cylinder in similar sized vehicles. Even on regular the Car and Driver test showed 360 hp and 463 ftlbs AT THE WHEELS, vs the Silverado's claimed 310 hp 348 ftlbs AT THE CRANK. You are trying to compare the premium engine in one to the base engine in the other.

 

[L J]

Again, easy to fact check, rather than just make random claims. Car and Driver tested the 2.7T Silverado at 18.2 seconds 0-100.

2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 2.7T Four-Cylinder: Capable but Thirsty

It tows more than you'd expect but also drinks more fuel than you'd expect.

www.caranddriver.com

I don't know why you don't want to accept that a 3.5L twin turbo V6 is faster than a 2.7L turbo 4 cylinder in similar sized vehicles. Even on regular the Car and Driver test showed 360 hp and 463 ftlbs AT THE WHEELS, vs the Silverado's claimed 310 hp 348 ftlbs AT THE CRANK. You are trying to compare the premium engine in one to the base engine in the other.

I didn't really expect the 4 cyl to stomp on the Ford like my truck would with any grade fuel. I would get real tired of filling the ford with premium all the time to keep up with a 6.2 GM truck on regular.
PS Quadrasteer and E-Force makes my AWD Sierra faster then a Ford and make a sharper U-turn then your Regal.

 

[adam728]

So your car with tune has less top speed then stock Commander in C&D test on Chryslers high speed oval?

No idea, unless they want to let me run the Chrysler oval. Stock I quit at 138 mph, and it took >50 seconds to get there. Heck, it went 50-100 in the same time it took to go from 130-138 mph! Acceleration had slowed to a crawl. Sure it'd keep going, but I can't imagine how many minutes it'd take to get >150 mph.

I've not been that quick since tuned, and the time we went to barren wasteland and did a few runs, I screwed up my setting and recorded crap data ("Device Time" was the only column populated). It definitely seemed faster, as I was doing ~30 sec pulls and reaching ~130, which puts it 8-10 seconds ahead of the stock run there.

Post in thread '180 speedo may not be unrealistic, with tune to remove speed limiter.' 180 speedo may not be unrealistic, with tune to remove speed limiter.
In this thread the Opel version got to 163 mph in video.

I read that thread. There's no way this car does 180 mph without major modifications. Physics simply doesn't support it.

This Wallace calculator is fairly accurate. Calculate HP For Speed

We have a whole mess of equations for doing rolling resistance, coast down curves, etc to create accurate road-load dyno setups for testing vehicles (emissions and other things for OEM's). It all comes out within spitting distance. Trifecta showed a TourX laying down 191 whp stock, and 225 whp with their tune (AWD makes for sad dyno numbers, so the fwd platform is what's normally shared).

Trifecta Install, Black Friday 2020

Also, why not run 91-93 Octane? You are literally wasting money on the tune if you run 85-87 Octane. The engine can run more timing with higher manifold pressure, with the slower ignition of higher octane fuels. The twenty-something cents per gallon is worth better mileage (higher timing)...

buickforums.com

• A Regal Sportback has a drag coefficient of 0.28, and frontal area of 24.2 ft^2.
  • 155 mph requires 193 whp
  • 163 mph requires 223 whp
  • 180 mph requires 295 whp
• TourX is 0.30 and 24.6 ft^2. (aero is as much the back of the car as the front, and the slight ride height increase comes into play with how air moves under the car)
  • 155 mph requires 209 whp (+16 whp from Sportback, +18 whp from stock dyno pull)
  • 163 mph requires 241 whp (+18 whp from Sportback, +50 whp from stock dyno, +16 whp from Trifecta dyno pull)
  • 180 mph requires 319 whp (+24 whp from Sportback, +128 whp from stock dyno, +94 whp from Trifecta dyno pull).

So sure, you could get a TourX to 180 mph. All you need is 67% more hp than stock. That's not impossible, but it's also a far cry from just removing a speed limiter. And in all the examples above, you better have a LOT of space to get to top speed. In my experience the last 5-8 mph takes an excruciatingly long time. In theory a TourX with just a tune could get 159 mph. I can't imagine how much road one would need for even hitting the 155 mph governor.

 

[L J]

No idea, unless they want to let me run the Chrysler oval. Stock I quit at 138 mph, and it took >50 seconds to get there. Heck, it went 50-100 in the same time it took to go from 130-138 mph! Acceleration had slowed to a crawl. Sure it'd keep going, but I can't imagine how many minutes it'd take to get >150 mph.

I've not been that quick since tuned, and the time we went to barren wasteland and did a few runs, I screwed up my setting and recorded crap data ("Device Time" was the only column populated). It definitely seemed faster, as I was doing ~30 sec pulls and reaching ~130, which puts it 8-10 seconds ahead of the stock run there.



I read that thread. There's no way this car does 180 mph without major modifications. Physics simply doesn't support it.

This Wallace calculator is fairly accurate. Calculate HP For Speed

We have a whole mess of equations for doing rolling resistance, coast down curves, etc to create accurate road-load dyno setups for testing vehicles (emissions and other things for OEM's). It all comes out within spitting distance. Trifecta showed a TourX laying down 191 whp stock, and 225 whp with their tune (AWD makes for sad dyno numbers, so the fwd platform is what's normally shared).

Trifecta Install, Black Friday 2020

Also, why not run 91-93 Octane? You are literally wasting money on the tune if you run 85-87 Octane. The engine can run more timing with higher manifold pressure, with the slower ignition of higher octane fuels. The twenty-something cents per gallon is worth better mileage (higher timing)...

buickforums.com

• A Regal Sportback has a drag coefficient of 0.28, and frontal area of 24.2 ft^2.
  • 155 mph requires 193 whp
  • 163 mph requires 223 whp
  • 180 mph requires 295 whp
• TourX is 0.30 and 24.6 ft^2. (aero is as much the back of the car as the front, and the slight ride height increase comes into play with how air moves under the car)
  • 155 mph requires 209 whp (+16 whp from Sportback, +18 whp from stock dyno pull)
  • 163 mph requires 241 whp (+18 whp from Sportback, +50 whp from stock dyno, +16 whp from Trifecta dyno pull)
  • 180 mph requires 319 whp (+24 whp from Sportback, +128 whp from stock dyno, +94 whp from Trifecta dyno pull).

So sure, you could get a TourX to 180 mph. All you need is 67% more hp than stock. That's not impossible, but it's also a far cry from just removing a speed limiter. And in all the examples above, you better have a LOT of space to get to top speed. In my experience the last 5-8 mph takes an excruciatingly long time. In theory a TourX with just a tune could get 159 mph. I can't imagine how much road one would need for even hitting the 155 mph governor.

That Opel doing 163 on autobahn must have been drafting a fast semi.

 

[adam728]

I didn't really expect the 4 cyl to stomp on the Ford like my truck would with any grade fuel. I would get real tired of filling the ford with premium all the time to keep up with a 6.2 GM truck on regular.
PS Quadrasteer and E-Force makes my AWD Sierra faster then a Ford and make a sharper U-turn then your Regal.

Very cool truck. But again, you are comparing apples-to-oranges-to-a-pumpkin. Go look at what 5 Star tuning is doing with Ecoboost F150's. Intake, intercooler, exhaust, and E85 tune and they are pulling off mid-11's. That's freakishly amazing. I remember when hitting 12's in a sporty car was pretty quick. And 10's nearly required a purpose built drag car.

 

[adam728]

That Opel doing 163 on autobahn must have been drafting a fast semi.

Do you know the conditions they were running? Was there a tail wind? Slight downhill slope? Why was this car apparently not governed? Did it come with higher speed rated tires than ours? Or do they just not care over there? Is engine/transmission tuning the same as here? I know there have been several mentions in articles that the traction and stability control for the US market was specifically tuned. And the Holden got different engine/trans tuning for their market.

In other words, one YouTube video of a different car in a different market pulling off something under unknown conditions doesn't tell you what every car here will do.

Man, we really derailed this thread....

 

[L J]

Do you know the conditions they were running? Was there a tail wind? Slight downhill slope? Why was this car apparently not governed? Did it come with higher speed rated tires than ours? Or do they just not care over there? Is engine/transmission tuning the same as here? I know there have been several mentions in articles that the traction and stability control for the US market was specifically tuned. And the Holden got different engine/trans tuning for their market.

In other words, one YouTube video of a different car in a different market pulling off something under unknown conditions doesn't tell you what every car here will do.

Do you know the conditions they were running? Was there a tail wind? Slight downhill slope? Why was this car apparently not governed? Did it come with higher speed rated tires than ours? Or do they just not care over there? Is engine/transmission tuning the same as here? I know there have been several mentions in articles that the traction and stability control for the US market was specifically tuned. And the Holden got different engine/trans tuning for their market.

In other words, one YouTube video of a different car in a different market pulling off something under unknown conditions doesn't tell you what every car here will do.

No shit Sherlock.. I mean Adam...
This maybe the most fun I have all day by poking you so serious thin skinned guys with a stick... I really hope its not the most fun I have today, but my life is getting more lame all the time.
PS Seriously to try to answer your questions...
Conditions were about average, tail wind was hard to judge at 163 mph but when I stuck my hand out the window to judge I couldn't tell.
Didn't see any governors or tuning mods, and since we were driving to hell in a handbasket..l mean Opel
It may have been a downgrade.

 

[L J]

No shit Sherlock.. I mean Adam...
This maybe the most fun I have all day by poking you so serious thin skinned guys with a stick... I really hope its not the most fun I have today, but my life is getting more lame all the time.
PS Seriously to try to answer your questions...
Conditions were about average, tail wind was hard to judge at 163 mph but when I stuck my hand out the window to judge I couldn't tell.
Didn't see any governors or tuning mods, and since we were driving to hell in a handbasket..l mean Opel
It may have been a downgrade.

Really sorry guys..my evil twin may have been vaporizing those herbal meds he likes, unfortunately you cant smell it like when he was smoking it...
He really needs to get a life and quit picking on you guys.
But to get back on track, I am gonna keep burning regular to save money, and to get him some downer strain instead of his favorite sativa strain so he just goes to sleep.

 

[RegalMN]

I found this article very interesting. Our turbo engine is more like the Honda's engine then the other engine's, and it seems to not give a dam about high octane fuel.
PS No doubt our butt dyno testing is much more accurate then C&D measurements could ever be.

Is Premium Gas Worth It? We Test High Octane on 4 Popular Vehicles

We tested higher octane fuel than manufacturers require on the Honda CR-V, BMW M5, Ford F-150, and Dodge Charger to see if it impacted acceleration or MPG.

www.caranddriver.com

There is a difference in what this article is talking about and what people are debating here. The article is talking about using higher octane than recommended. We are talking about not using a lower-than-recommended octane. Our 2.0L engine was designed to maximize the benefit of higher octane fuel. Power loss and engine damage is possible in this situation. If an engine is designed for 87 octane, then sure you're not going to see much gain by using 92 octane.

 

[L J]

There is a difference in what this article is talking about and what people are debating here. The article is talking about using higher octane than recommended. We are talking about not using a lower-than-recommended octane. Our 2.0L engine was designed to maximize the benefit of higher octane fuel. Power loss and engine damage is possible in this situation. If an engine is designed for 87 octane, then sure you're not going to see much gain by using 92 octane.

I think the only vehicle using higher then recommended fuel was the Honda. I have not done the research on those specific vehicles but I assume Ford may require premium, but Fords engine guy said regular will not hurt it.
GM says 87 is fine in our rather low performance turbo four, if it was a problem they would require premium like the GM tune in my turbo 4 coupe.
But then I have not heard of any as delivered Regals getting into the 12's thru the quarter.
PS I think it is a little faster topless, like most women.

 

[BenD]

There is a difference in what this article is talking about and what people are debating here. The article is talking about using higher octane than recommended. We are talking about not using a lower-than-recommended octane. Our 2.0L engine was designed to maximize the benefit of higher octane fuel. Power loss and engine damage is possible in this situation. If an engine is designed for 87 octane, then sure you're not going to see much gain by using 92 octane.

There is a difference in what this article is talking about and what people are debating here. The article is talking about using higher octane than recommended. We are talking about not using a lower-than-recommended octane. Our 2.0L engine was designed to maximize the benefit of higher octane fuel. Power loss and engine damage is possible in this situation. If an engine is designed for 87 octane, then sure you're not going to see much gain by using 92 octane.

Octane have no effect if people think about gaining power, saving on consumption by using higher octane than recommended.

 

[adam728]

GM says 87 is fine in our rather low performance turbo four, if it was a problem they would require premium like the GM tune in my turbo 4 coupe.
But then I have not heard of any as delivered Regals getting into the 12's thru the quarter.
PS I think it is a little faster topless, like most women.

Except they recommend 93, and claim 87 can lower performance and economy. And specifically say no less than 89 if towing, and they engine damage and no warrenty coverage could result. As noted on page 3.

Premium vs Regular Fuel

Herts shows Regal, Malibu, Camaro, CTS Caddy, all with the 2.0L turbo engines. https://pub.emails.hertz.com/fleet?cid=chrysler_300 Probably ones in Utah get a steady dose of 85 octane because you have to pay extra for 87 as midgrade.

buickforums.com

So yes, it can run regular. Doesn't mean there aren't potential trade offs. In my experience, even with the cruise set in cooler weather (so tune off) I see several degrees of knock retard with 87 octane. And none with 93.

 

[L J]

Except they recommend 93, and claim 87 can lower performance and economy. And specifically say no less than 89 if towing, and they engine damage and no warrenty coverage could result. As noted on page 3.

Premium vs Regular Fuel

Herts shows Regal, Malibu, Camaro, CTS Caddy, all with the 2.0L turbo engines. https://pub.emails.hertz.com/fleet?cid=chrysler_300 Probably ones in Utah get a steady dose of 85 octane because you have to pay extra for 87 as midgrade.

buickforums.com

So yes, it can run regular. Doesn't mean there aren't potential trade offs. In my experience, even with the cruise set in cooler weather (so tune off) I see several degrees of knock retard with 87 octane. And none with 93.

Good your car is doing just what it should do to run as efficiently as possible on 87, 89, 91, 93 or whatever you feed it.
There are always tradeoffs.... like on your first or third date, and you feed her hamburger instead of steak and you may not get lucky if your feeling sporty.
The TourX had a zero tow rating for awhile, so will use my 5 ton towing capacity truck not the 1/2 ton rating on car.
PS Buick did not put 89 octane condition for towing in my manual.

 

[adam728]

The TourX had a zero tow rating for awhile, so will use my 5 ton towing capacity truck not the 1/2 ton rating on car.

And when I am hauling just 250 lbs of dirt bike on probably less than 300 lbs of trailer, I'll take the completely-capable wagon instead if the completely-overkill 3/4 ton. Especially when one gets double the mpg (or more) vs the other.

 

[L J]

And when I am hauling just 250 lbs of dirt bike on probably less than 300 lbs of trailer, I'll take the completely-capable wagon instead if the completely-overkill 3/4 ton. Especially when one gets double the mpg (or more) vs the other.

Makes sense to me, I guess if I had to tow 1/2 a ton.. I could use the TourX, TA, or GP or tow a ton with the G8 AKA Great.
We did have a hitch on our 02 Aztec with the optional tow package for a ton and a half capacity. It was a good towing vehicle.

 

[FavaBean]

We did have a hitch on our 02 Aztec....

Why isn't this beauty listed in your signature? Did your evil twin own it?

 

[L J]

Why isn't this beauty listed in your signature? Did your evil twin own it?

No my really evil ex did.
Compared to her, my twin is a pillar of the community.

 

[L J]

Why isn't this beauty listed in your signature? Did your evil twin own it?

Added to past vehicles
Bought Aztec for ex after returning her new Saturn in the return window, I have been known to return stuff.
I think I paid $15k for a new 23k sticker Pontiac truck.

 

[NubianRugby]

I've been running my 2019 TourX Essence on premium fuel since it was new. With fuel prices out of control I started to run on regular fuel to save 50 to 60 cents per gallon. I haven't noticed any difference in normal driving. I would appreciate any comments from members who have been running regular fuel routinely. Thanks

I recently bought a 18 TourX Essence (Redline) and put regular fuel in the first time I filled it up. I noticed that the engine got very buzzy, not louder or knocking but definitely not quite right and clearly noticeable. Gas mileage improved after that tank of regular ~10% and (maybe I want this to be true cause I'm gonna keep buying premium) it feels just a tiny bit stronger. Literally, YMMV.

 

[PeterGunn]

I dunno, the owner's manual says 93 Octane, I have no problem following their recommendations. The first gen Cadillac SRX with the big-ass Northstar and AWD that I traded in for this TourX was a wallet draining fillup at the pumps.

Even with 93 running @ ~$4.60 a gallon in these parts I've yet to put more than $35.00 in the tank, this thing gets better gas mileage than my 2016 Regal Turbo. Not sure how that's possible as the Regal is smaller and lighter but the TourX has consistently used less gas doing almost the same driving loops as the Regal. Maybe it's the transmission and the proclivity of getting to top gear at about 40 MHP...

And just FYI, after bugging several of you (well... all) about the Trifecta tune, I ordered it this morning, now I can't wait to get it.