Isn't this alot like asking: "Do you want to pay $2.30 or $2.80 for a gallon of gas for the 5th gen"?

Another anlogy might be "Do you want to slam your finger or your pecker in the door?"

Either way, you know the answer already.

 

Could not put that better myself. The only place where I'd understand using an engine that requires premium is in a limited edition ZL-1 with a blown LS2.

 

V6 and Base V8 should definatly run 87.

Technically the LS1 could run 87 too. I ran mine for a few weeks on 87 and it ran fine, got about the same milage too.

 

 

Yes it was a Miller engine. Dunno why Miller engines get a unique name... they aren't radically different like a Wenkel.

 

I vote 87 octane. In fact, I vote with my wallet every week: my LS1 gets only 87 octane unless I know I'm going to the track. It effectively makes a difference only at WOT, and honestly, how often are you at WOT?

I applaud GM for making their HFV6s run on 87 octane and thereby giving up a few horsepower to other engines like Nissan's VQ. While it may cost them marketing brownie points, Cadillac's customers sure appreciate it.

 

Well, Diesel gets its name from its inventor, Rudolf Diesel. Miller gets its name from its inventor, Ralph Millerf, who patented the technology in the 1940s. The regular engines are actually Otto-cycle engines because they were invented by Nikolaus Otto.

A Miller-cycle engine uses a supercharger, but it also leaves the intake valve open during part of the compression stroke, so that the engine is compressing against the pressure of the supercharger rather than the pressure of the cylinder walls. The piston does less work because part of the work is done by the supercharger. The piston compresses about 70 to 80% of its total movement upward in the compression stroke, and the other 20 to 30% are essentially "free ride" with no energy loss. This cycle works only if the supercharger can compress the air in the cylinder at less energy than the piston. Hence, it has increased efficiency.

 

Perhaps this is my imagination, but I always feel a measure of difference, though negligible, between 87 and 91 or 94 octane without WOT. Hot days especially.

Do you drive an automatic? Maybe that's why the difference is not felt as much. In the standard, octane would affect at what RPMs I would start the car from a standstill (a little higher for regular, a little lower for premium).

 

Would be nice if they could get us the power that we want and find a way to have it delivered even with 87 octane.

What with rising fuel costs, that would be a major selling feature.

 

Ah, but the key is that at anything less than WOT, all you have to do is push your right foot down a wee bit harder and you've regained any power lost by the lower octane. The only time this won't work of course is at WOT because you can't open the throttle any more, which is why I say octane pretty much only matters at WOT.

 

This day and age there should be no reason why they can't make all the power they need with 87 octane.

 

87.

Engines (not stock is what im talking about), that need the 93 will ping a little as the miles pack on and the carbon builds up and the valves dont seat as well and what not. And of course there arent any alternatives other than regular octane booster or race fuel.

It should burn 87. Hell, give it a "Z28" button to push when you put premium in to make more power or something neat like that. Something different and unpredictable, not a handicap from birth.

 

I think miller engines use a stratified charge???? but dont qoute me on that. The only time I've read about the miller cycle was when the millenia used the process and the occasional article about improved efficiency and the like.

here is the wikipedia link for miller cycle in any event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle

 

Like others said, the V6 and lower V8's must run on regular. These prices are outrageous. All of them. If you're gonna buy the top car, make sure you can afford high octane.

 

Gotcha, that makes sense.