Seen From My 2011 Cruze Today MPG...

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: sciphi
There are very few Top Tier gas stations in my area. Mobil is the only one, and the Mobil station in town is filthy. I'll fill up in a Mobil a few towns over since that station gets lots of turnover, and is kept up well. In town, the non-Top Tier stations are much busier and cleaner than the Mobil. I fill up at those stations in town. I haven't noticed a difference between the Mobil and the other stations.


Same here. The only top tier fuel station I have is 45 miles north of me. I have the options of a fairly clean Mobil station, Gulf, lot's of Stewarts, and HESS. Not much to choose from really. I usually get it at the mobil station because they usually have the cheapest premium. The nox usually gets Gulf, because it's the cheapest regular.


WOW!

I have:

2x Esso Top Tier stations
1x Shell Top Tier station
1x Petro-Canada Top Tier station

all within a Km or two of me!

 

[KrisZ]

I never heard of top tier fuel until I joined BITOG.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Yeah but its an economy car it should run fine on cheap fuel.

My moms ancient 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass used to get 31-32 mpg driving down to FL with the whole family in the car 12 years ago, and that had a V6 and only got the cheapest of fuel.


These modern little cars should be getting 40+.


Verified.
My ex's 1991 Lumina (same W-chassis as the Cutlass Supreme)got over 30 mpg at 70+ on regular unleaded from a Coastal station in Kansas(all gas stations on the Kansas Turnpike were Coastals).
That's a 3.1 V6 with a four speed automatic and seating for 6. (base V6 Lumina with 14" wheels, not the Euro model)

Similarly loaded, and at similar speeds, my Mazda will only see about 26-27 mpg on E10. (on the return trips I get rural Oklahoma gas sans ethanol and can get closer to the Lumina's mpg, but I can't beat it even with two extra ratios in the transmission...my engine does produce about 80 more horsepower than the LH0 3.1 but I cannot beat the Lumina's fuel economy.)

The Lumina was almost certainly roomier in every aspect over the Cruze. The Lumina may not be as safe in a collision but certainly not MUCH worse. It's disappointing that a car that much older and larger turns in real world fuel economy numbers that close.

But if you really want to be disappointed in the new, look at the Civics.
The 6th gen Civic HX's economy is as good/better than the Civic Hybrid and real world fuel economy of the Civic CX easily eclipses all the current Honda models

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Most of my modern vehicles have experienced better fuel economy on premium. Even my regular ol' Camry. Most modern engines have enough room in the timing maps that the timing will advance further on premium compared with regular, usually yielding better economy. I haven't yet tried premium in the Honda, but I might soon.


Not in the MZI/Duratec 3.0.

Best fuel economy has been on 87 octane. I was hoping the timing maps would do just that with the 10:1 compression ratio in the Ford/Mazda V6 but it doesn't.

The PT Cruiser knocks badly if we use anything less than 93 octane though. Some knocking and pinging on 91 at Wide open throttle. Significant knock on 89 at 1/2 throttle. I'm impressed that the Cruze 1.4T can tolerate 87 octane at all.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Most of my modern vehicles have experienced better fuel economy on premium. Even my regular ol' Camry. Most modern engines have enough room in the timing maps that the timing will advance further on premium compared with regular, usually yielding better economy. I haven't yet tried premium in the Honda, but I might soon.


Not in the MZI/Duratec 3.0.

Best fuel economy has been on 87 octane. I was hoping the timing maps would do just that with the 10:1 compression ratio in the Ford/Mazda V6 but it doesn't.

The PT Cruiser knocks badly if we use anything less than 93 octane though. Some knocking and pinging on 91 at Wide open throttle. Significant knock on 89 at 1/2 throttle. I'm impressed that the Cruze 1.4T can tolerate 87 octane at all.


the ECM retards the timing significantly on 87 octane.

 

[RTexasF]

Quote:
Now it will clog fuel injectors, build up carbon on valves, and cause all kinds of driveability problems.

The 10-20 cents you save per gallon will seen like nothing when your dealer gives you a big bill for fuel related problems not covered under your factory warranty.

The minimum allowable additives that most cheaper fuels have won't prevent driveablity problems. That's why most manufacturers have warned owners in writing: Burn them in your fuel tank at your own risk, not ours.


You don't really believe that do you? Out of tens of thousands of fill ups I have used top tier fuel less than five times over the years. Never had drivability problems in any car buying the cheapest I could find including now. So much for your gloom and doom theory if top tier isn't used. You're drinking the Kool Aid and they've got you right where they want....by the wallet.

I'm rather surprised the little Turbo Chevy runs as well as it does on 87 octane.

 

[MrCritical]

Top tier certainly wasn't as important "over the years" as today's modern engines, with a few exceptions.

I've seen numerous early 90's Caprice/Roadmasters with such carbon buildup problems you'd swear they were going to throw a rod any second. Of course there were no top tier fuels then, but carbon buildup has been around for many years.

BMW recommends removing the heads now on some models to properly get rid of some of their carbon problems. The EcoBoost Taurus carbon problem is welld documented on their forums as well as BG's. I expect no less from the F150.

A Google search shows benefits and advantages of top tier. It's not just something I pulled out of a hat. To say what today's engine with today's fuels will do based on what your 9
20 year old Lumina did with the available fuels, fuel systems, and emissions equipment available at that time is ridiculous.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
Top tier certainly wasn't as important "over the years" as today's modern engines, with a few exceptions.

I've seen numerous early 90's Caprice/Roadmasters with such carbon buildup problems you'd swear they were going to throw a rod any second. Of course there were no top tier fuels then, but carbon buildup has been around for many years.

BMW recommends removing the heads now on some models to properly get rid of some of their carbon problems. The EcoBoost Taurus carbon problem is welld documented on their forums as well as BG's. I expect no less from the F150.

A Google search shows benefits and advantages of top tier. It's not just something I pulled out of a hat. To say what today's engine with today's fuels will do based on what your 9
20 year old Lumina did with the available fuels, fuel systems, and emissions equipment available at that time is ridiculous.


Never had that problem with the Windsors........ Perhaps "bad fuel" isn't such an issue up here?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
Top tier certainly wasn't as important "over the years" as today's modern engines, with a few exceptions.

I've seen numerous early 90's Caprice/Roadmasters with such carbon buildup problems you'd swear they were going to throw a rod any second. Of course there were no top tier fuels then, but carbon buildup has been around for many years.

BMW recommends removing the heads now on some models to properly get rid of some of their carbon problems. The EcoBoost Taurus carbon problem is welld documented on their forums as well as BG's. I expect no less from the F150.

A Google search shows benefits and advantages of top tier. It's not just something I pulled out of a hat. To say what today's engine with today's fuels will do based on what your 9
20 year old Lumina did with the available fuels, fuel systems, and emissions equipment available at that time is ridiculous.


Really? Who has a 20 year old Lumina?

Do you UNDERSTAND what DI is? Again tell us HOW top tier fuel is going to take care of the "carbon" problem that Ford and other MFG are having with DI'd motors.

Don't tell us to use Google and "learn" from the idiots who have no clue other than the marketing "benefits and advantages" spew of Top Tier fuels puts out and folks who buy it and pass the koolaid.

I want to hear how the MAJORITY of the engines out there that are NOT using Top Tier fuels are going to have major issues since they do NOT use the "better" fuel.

Please let me know when those "problems/issues" are going to happen. What time or mileage? And again how top tier makes the "issues" of DI'd motors go away.

Bill

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Never had that problem with the Windsors........ Perhaps "bad fuel" isn't such an issue up here?


And its not a problem down here. Its a made up "problem" to justify people who buy the marketing of certain products. Just like the base oil and such.

Never mind millions of engines that run fine on normal oil and fuels for hundreds of millions of miles.

It cost more and its better. It HAS to make things last/run longer/better!

You MUST use this fuel and that oil IF you want your engine to survive.

Use anything else and you are clueless. I see it all the time here over the last 10 years.

And I am still amazed that it keeps being spewed.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
...
A Google search shows benefits and advantages of top tier. It's not just something I pulled out of a hat. To say what today's engine with today's fuels will do based on what your 9
20 year old Lumina did with the available fuels, fuel systems, and emissions equipment available at that time is ridiculous.


I'm not questioning the benefits of top tier fuel. I'm with you on that.

But I still find it ironic that a larger car with more than double the displacement, a much more primitive fuel management system, and only 4 speeds matches the real world consumption of the smaller car. Drag coefficient is a wash between the two. They're both somewhere around .29-.3. A credit to how slippery the Lumina was for it's time. I'm fairly certain the BFGs we had on the Lumina had greater rolling resistance than the Cruze's tires. The 5W30 in the 3.1 was "energy conserving" but not like today' oils.

 

[sciphi]

GM's 3100/3300/3400/3800 V6's were always known for great highway fuel economy. My old Buick with its 3800 V6 routinely knocked down 30+ mpg at highway speeds. A super-low 4th gear turning the engine over slowly helped.

My Cruze routinely gets more than 40 mpg for a tank in mostly gentle highway driving. It is the "eco" version with a MT known to be the most fuel-efficient Cruze model, though.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
GM's 3100/3300/3400/3800 V6's were always known for great highway fuel economy. My old Buick with its 3800 V6 routinely knocked down 30+ mpg at highway speeds. A super-low 4th gear turning the engine over slowly helped.

My Cruze routinely gets more than 40 mpg for a tank in mostly gentle highway driving. It is the "eco" version with a MT known to be the most fuel-efficient Cruze model, though.


+1. the GM V6 engines were usually coupled with extremely tall OD gears. They only turn something like what, 1800RPM at 70?. My 2011 AT turns 2900 at 75. They did fix that for 2012. Not to mention, I believe the cruze weighs just as much as the lumina/century did.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Everthing I drive gets premium.


Everything I drive gets nothing but Mobil regular..That included my 70 GTO,73 Caddy and 77 Caprice..All the EFI Fords [since 1985] ran awesome on regular for the entire time I had them which was between 200-300K miles..I did have some friends who owned the exact same cars I did and they ran premium and there was zero difference in gas mileage and performance.

I did get carbon build up in the Caddy every so often that the independent mechanic [who also worked for the Caddy dealer by day] got out by pouring brake fluid into the carburetor..The guys who I know who used premium gas in their Caddy at the time had the exact same issue with the carbon.

 

[hattaresguy]

Gas is gas, buy whatever is least expensive, it all comes from the same pipe lines.

One thing that does make a difference is buying from high volume stations. This way you get fresher gas and they tend to keep their filters cleaner and have modern tanks that don't have a foot of water at the bottom of them.

Oh and lastly if you switch up the brands they clean each other out. Every brand has a slightly different add pack added in the tanker, as a result one brand tends to clean what another misses, etc.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Everthing I drive gets premium. The 4 to 10 bucks a tank on fill up comes out in the wash.


Premium isn't good enough. It has to be Top Tier as well.

When I say premium that is what I what I mean. Texaco or Chevron is all they get.

 

[mechanicx]

Ive seen injectors clogged and ruined by low-additive gas. Even more often is injectors that are partly restricted cause the engine not to start and run as smoothly. It depends on the drive cycle (hort trip vs highway) and the injectors. Some injectors seem to have a higher tendency to get restricted.

On the other hand some models and drive cycles tend to not have issues. But again, that does not mean that other models and/or drive cycles wont have issues with low-additive gas. Plus top tier gas can keep the injectors and valves cleaner for smoother starting and running on modles and drive cycles that have "no issues".

Top tier fuel is in no way a gimmick and often times top tier gas is priced competitevly with non top tier competitors.

 

[sciphi]

And Top Tier does me no good when there are very limited TT options in the market.

I use highly-traveled stations and add a dash of MMO at every fillup.

 

[MrCritical]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Ive seen injectors clogged and ruined by low-additive gas. Even more often is injectors that are partly restricted cause the engine not to start and run as smoothly. It depends on the drive cycle (hort trip vs highway) and the injectors. Some injectors seem to have a higher tendency to get restricted.

On the other hand some models and drive cycles tend to not have issues. But again, that does not mean that other models and/or drive cycles wont have issues with low-additive gas. Plus top tier gas can keep the injectors and valves cleaner for smoother starting and running on modles and drive cycles that have "no issues".

Top tier fuel is in no way a gimmick and often times top tier gas is priced competitevly with non top tier competitors.


x2.

It's humorous to me how "minimum acceptable standards" (cheap gas) become acceptable when it hits your pocketboook for a few cents a gallon. Then some feel it necessary to defend that action. Maybe you have to take each vehicle on a case by case basis.

On a similar (in my mind) note, did you know the "standard" for Vitamin C for humans per day is based on the minimum amount it takes to keep you from getting scurvy? Personally, I think I'll have a little more, and a slightly higher quality gas as well.

 

[mechanicx]

From my perspective the top tier is a better bargain. I sometimes get slightly better milage then the sometimes overly water downed "bargain" gas and I don't have to use techron to get the same smooth running. Or worse case scenario I don't have to clean the injectors through the rail.

The top tier Shell station near me is usually the same price as the no name brand across the street and the Sunoco next door. At most it is only a few cents more. Sometimes it is 10 cents/gal cheaper when I have fuel rewards from Kroger lol.