Programming GM 6.0 for regular unleaded?
- Thread starter LeakySeals
- Start date
- Status
You'll get worse fuel economy as others have stated, and the savings from running 87 will be negligible. This is personal experience from having two cars that can technically use 87, but are really tuned for 91+.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Compare view does not match the tables above. For example, take the first block on top left in outlined section (1,000 RPM @ 0.40gr):
LQ9 high @ 4°
LQ4 high @ 18°
Compare is showing LQ4 with 3° less
Good catch, That is a compare file to stock LM7.
LQ9 High Octane table....
Compare view does not match the tables above. For example, take the first block on top left in outlined section (1,000 RPM @ 0.40gr):
LQ9 high @ 4°
LQ4 high @ 18°
Compare is showing LQ4 with 3° less
Good catch, That is a compare file to stock LM7.
LQ9 High Octane table....
My input as an owner of a 2006 GMC Sierra Denali LQ9 6.0L. The LQ9 engine is awesome and rated at 345hp vs the standard 300hp 6.0L.
I run 93 all the time. I did try 87 once just for kicks....less fuel economy. I have mine tuned with a Predator to reduce the torque management nuisance but the programmer does have a fuel economy program you can select for 87. I tried it just for kicks - NO THANKS! The power was down and the MPG was NO BETTER and actually was nearly 1 MPG less.
My opinion - run premium (or midgrade at the minimum) and enjoy the truck. It's only an extra $2 on average more per fill up.
I run 93 all the time. I did try 87 once just for kicks....less fuel economy. I have mine tuned with a Predator to reduce the torque management nuisance but the programmer does have a fuel economy program you can select for 87. I tried it just for kicks - NO THANKS! The power was down and the MPG was NO BETTER and actually was nearly 1 MPG less.
My opinion - run premium (or midgrade at the minimum) and enjoy the truck. It's only an extra $2 on average more per fill up.
Instead of a tune, why not just let the knock sensor handle it?
One thing not accounted for - - most of time, higher octane fuel isn't even needed unless accelerating or going uphill.
I have a soft right foot, so 95% of the driving I do wouldn't need more than 83-85 octane.
One thing not accounted for - - most of time, higher octane fuel isn't even needed unless accelerating or going uphill.
I have a soft right foot, so 95% of the driving I do wouldn't need more than 83-85 octane.
Its 15 mins of climbing steep hills from the highway to the house every day. Why I have AWD. Glad I had it this week. I replaced and sealed the knock sensors with ACDelco parts. Went further, removed the oil valley plate to clean and replace the grommets. That combined with a new TB was huge. So its in a good position to try it. But after what you folks have said, think I will leave things alone.
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Good catch, That is a compare file to stock LM7.
That LQ9 table makes a lot more sense! Thanks for posting those; you're a great asset to this forum!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My input as an owner of a 2006 GMC Sierra Denali LQ9 6.0L. The LQ9 engine is awesome and rated at 345hp vs the standard 300hp 6.0L.
The standard/LQ4 6.0 started out at 300HP when introduced. By 2006 though (same year as your truck), they were up to 335HP.
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Instead of a tune, why not just let the knock sensor handle it?
Rhetorical, or interested in a technical discussion?
Good catch, That is a compare file to stock LM7.
That LQ9 table makes a lot more sense! Thanks for posting those; you're a great asset to this forum!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My input as an owner of a 2006 GMC Sierra Denali LQ9 6.0L. The LQ9 engine is awesome and rated at 345hp vs the standard 300hp 6.0L.
The standard/LQ4 6.0 started out at 300HP when introduced. By 2006 though (same year as your truck), they were up to 335HP.
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Instead of a tune, why not just let the knock sensor handle it?
Rhetorical, or interested in a technical discussion?
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Good catch, That is a compare file to stock LM7.
That LQ9 table makes a lot more sense! Thanks for posting those; you're a great asset to this forum!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My input as an owner of a 2006 GMC Sierra Denali LQ9 6.0L. The LQ9 engine is awesome and rated at 345hp vs the standard 300hp 6.0L.
The standard/LQ4 6.0 started out at 300HP when introduced. By 2006 though (same year as your truck), they were up to 335HP.
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Instead of a tune, why not just let the knock sensor handle it?
Rhetorical, or interested in a technical discussion?
Actually I think the LQ4 topped out at 325hp but the base 6.0L in 2500 series trucks was 300hp. That was what I was comparing my HO LQ9 to.
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Good catch, That is a compare file to stock LM7.
That LQ9 table makes a lot more sense! Thanks for posting those; you're a great asset to this forum!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
My input as an owner of a 2006 GMC Sierra Denali LQ9 6.0L. The LQ9 engine is awesome and rated at 345hp vs the standard 300hp 6.0L.
The standard/LQ4 6.0 started out at 300HP when introduced. By 2006 though (same year as your truck), they were up to 335HP.
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Instead of a tune, why not just let the knock sensor handle it?
Rhetorical, or interested in a technical discussion?
Actually I think the LQ4 topped out at 325hp but the base 6.0L in 2500 series trucks was 300hp. That was what I was comparing my HO LQ9 to.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
