When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I agree with everyone here to put in 93 octane and I have and will continue to do the same in mine.
I do have a dumb question though (and it was brought up above)............did anybody that you know of actually damage an engine from running 87 100% of the time?
The reason I ask is my daily driver is a 1993 Lincoln Mark VIII that also 'requires' 93 octane. For the first 100,000 miles I owned it, I did put super in. I stopped putting super in right around 120,000 miles. Now it has 217,000 miles on it..........so I've driven ~100,000miles using 87 in a '93 required' car.........with no problems?
And now with 217,000 miles on her, there's no chance it's getting super again.
So, I ask, does anybody know anybody that actually damaged the engine in a C5 by running 87........or any other 93-required car for that matter..........hmmmmmm???
my instruction manual states 91 suggested but minimal 87 octane. After speaking to seveal mechanics I was told 87 is ok because the computer compensates for the fuel loss. It will not damage the engine using cheap gas. IF it would it would say it on the dashboard, and on the gas cap as required by law... I have been running 87 and 91 for 2 years and no knocks no engine damage...
There is no federal or state law that requires the use of high octane sticker on any car. The computer see engine knock... "ENGINE KNOCK" its ignition before top dead center. The computer reacts and retards the spark, thus reducing power under load... I can tell you wouldnt know the difference. every time your car sees a laod your get engine knock.. doing that enough "activating the knock sensors" will infact cause engine damage. Believe what you want, your mechanics dont know much. You do not want to run a C5 in Knock retard mode.It reduces performance and increases fuel usage.. AS I have stated many times I can get 33 mpg with 26 lb. injectors using 93 octane gas. and I have not done any damage to my car because of any pre-ignition.
my instruction manual states 91 suggested but minimal 87 octane. After speaking to seveal mechanics I was told 87 is ok because the computer compensates for the fuel loss. It will not damage the engine using cheap gas. IF it would it would say it on the dashboard, and on the gas cap as required by law... I have been running 87 and 91 for 2 years and no knocks no engine damage...
Right on. Feenix didn't ask to have his portfolio evaluated. He asked if 87 octane could be run thru an LS1. Absolutely. Read your manual. More than that, get a clue. I'm willing to bet that you can't MAKE the LS1 knock on 87. Know anyone with a detonation failure in a stock LS1?
That being said, I run the good stuff.
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-16-'17
Originally Posted by Feenix566
I want to get a yellow C5 convertible.
You might want to consider a different color. There was a thread not long ago about which color got the best gas mileage. If I remember correctly, yellow was one of the poorest.
Right on. Feenix didn't ask to have his portfolio evaluated. He asked if 87 octane could be run thru an LS1. Absolutely. Read your manual. More than that, get a clue. I'm willing to bet that you can't MAKE the LS1 knock on 87. Know anyone with a detonation failure in a stock LS1?
That being said, I run the good stuff.
LS/X engine with 10.0:1 compression, consistently knock with 91 octane with oil temps in the 230 range... very common. Ask anyone in California
WE have seen test mules in the field with holes in the pistons, burnt valve seats, wrist pin failure, conecting rod bearing failure. I dont know what type of job you have but, you should leave the advice giving to people who know something about this car, because you obviusly know nothing about this one or automotive technology in general.
It's guys like you who give us a bad name.
Last edited by Evil-Twin; Mar 2, 2006 at 09:33 PM.
I'm not going to spar with you. I too am a retired engineer. I spent many years as a subcontractor, listening to you GM engineers spout
I promised I would not post in the thread again, I apologize!!!
Lookie here lukeee you have been here 2 months and have made a couple of post... you wont get anywhere on this forum with that attitude... If we are so full of Billsh|t why did you buy one of our cars you hypocrite...
I have been on this forum for 5 years offering good sound advice to thousands of members. I take offense you your statement and will defend mine...The C5 is a magnificent piece of automotive technology. A classic aesthetically designed motorcar. BTW you don't want to spar with me...
Welcome to this forum.
You ........ Dont you think that running 350 hp or 405 hp on regular pump gas would be an amazing feat of engineering??? Use common sence.... Pre-ignition is an engine killer, many people in California running 91 octane are stretching the limits of their car on a hot day and they know it........
E-T
As you know we can't get better than 91 octane in CA or NV.
Can you expand on the point you make about high temperature vs pre ignition.
Feenix didn't ask to have his portfolio evaluated. He asked if 87 octane could be run thru an LS1.
Thank you!
I'm not going to post what my salary is, but trust me a $3/week gas bill is not going to make any difference at all to me. Like I said, I didn't realize how little the difference was.
And if I wanted financial advice, I'd ask a financial advisor, not a GM engineer. I come to corvetteforum.com for information about Corvettes.
Having said that, I do really appreciate all of the mechanical information and opinions that have been posted here.