Cruze reg vs Premium

Status
Not open for further replies.
I generally run Regular, but for an additional $3 per fillup I suppose I should be running premium. The one time I ran midgrade I did notice a difference in how it ran.
 
Last edited:
On most modern vehicles, I have found that timing is sufficiently retarded on regular fuel (even when regular is recommended) that the move to premium fuel usually pays for itself. I started running premium in my '11 Camry's 4-cylinder engine. Not only did the engine run better on it, but my mileage increased as well, close to the point where it was the same cost/mile. I was happy to pay the additional VERY SLIGHT difference in cost/mile for the better performance.

I would absolutely at least try premium in the Cruze for a few tanks and see how it does, recognizing that as the summer wanes and the weather begins to generally cool, you may be using less A/C so MPG may go up anyway, even with regular fuel.
 
Honestly I wonder if the motor needs premium in hot temps. Owners likely will find out past warranty.

GM does not have strong experience in turbo charging vehicles, yet. They had a tuning issue with their 2.8L V6 turbo.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Honestly I wonder if the motor needs premium in hot temps. Owners likely will find out past warranty.

GM does not have strong experience in turbo charging vehicles, yet. They had a tuning issue with their 2.8L V6 turbo.

FWIW, that 2.8L was Saab's design.
 
I'd run both and see, if the cost of the higher octane fuel is offset by better mileage their is no reason not to run it.
 
The thing is they calculated a very slight advantage in economy with premium over the price differential, almost a wash, but at very high temperatures of AZ and death value with the A/C on of course. But at cooler temperatures which would be even during the Summer in northerna areas and leave alone the rest of the year. I'd say GM did a good job of optimizing the eficiency on 87 especially for a turbo engine.

I always suspect that if an engine even a naturally aspirated one was tuned to run on a minimum of 91 at the current cost difference of premium vs regular, an economy advantage would be seen. In other words by bumping up the compression some fraction of a point that the vhehicle requires a minimum of 91 octane, even more efficiency would be gained. It's all a juggle of compression ratio, ignition timing and effiency gained vs cost differencial of the higher octane gas. I think the reason they don't tune 91 minimum is partly because drivers don't psychological want to pay for premium, and also there is less margin for error for hotter climates.
 
I run premium in my Cruze (Ecos get the 1.4t with a 6-speed manual or automatic, mine's manual). My fuel mileage went from 42 mpg to 45 mpg, so a small difference over a tank. It's enough to cover the additional cost. The biggest difference is that it's more powerful off boost. This makes hill climbing in higher gears possible, which saves a ton of fuel compared to needing a downshift and full turbo assistance to get up the hill. It's not quite as much a dog while off-boost, happily puttering along at 1000-1200 RPM on a flat surface with enough power to move the car along just fine. It didn't like that while running regular.

For me it's worth the extra $2-3 a tank for saving a $4 gallon of gas. It's a better investment than the stock market has been!
 
Gonna try this with my '11 Cruze 6AT and get back with you. At 1800 miles, getting about 27.8 mpg on reg e10, and 29.5 on reg gasoline which is scarce. Will try the e10 91 octane. Thanks!
 
There's scuttlebutt around that GM did a lot of tweaks to the 2012's tuning to make it run better. My 2012 ran just fine on 87. It does run better on 93 (our gas goes 87, 89, 93 octane).
 
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Honestly I wonder if the motor needs premium in hot temps. Owners likely will find out past warranty.

GM does not have strong experience in turbo charging vehicles, yet. They had a tuning issue with their 2.8L V6 turbo.

FWIW, that 2.8L was Saab's design.



GM has extensive experience with Turbos dating back to the early 1980's with Buick's 3.8 V6. What they did with turbo charging with the 1986/87 Grand National was amazing and I am reminded of it every time I drive mine.

GM also had the 1.8L and 2.0L turbos in the J-cars in the 80's and they ran a bat outta you know where. Then you got the Duramax Diesel turbo and that's pretty much rounded out.

I will say the 1980/81 Trans Am turbo was a dog, but more turbo experience but in the performance slump of the 1980s.

When you add all the supercharged 3.8L's I'd say GM has a strong record of forced induction.
 
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Honestly I wonder if the motor needs premium in hot temps. Owners likely will find out past warranty.

GM does not have strong experience in turbo charging vehicles, yet. They had a tuning issue with their 2.8L V6 turbo.

FWIW, that 2.8L was Saab's design.




GM has extensive experience with Turbos dating back to the early 1980's with Buick's 3.8 V6. What they did with turbo charging with the 1986/87 Grand National was amazing and I am reminded of it every time I drive mine.

GM also had the 1.8L and 2.0L turbos in the J-cars in the 80's and they ran a bat outta you know where. Then you got the Duramax Diesel turbo and that's pretty much rounded out.

I will say the 1980/81 Trans Am turbo was a dog, but more turbo experience but in the performance slump of the 1980s.

When you add all the supercharged 3.8L's I'd say GM has a strong record of forced induction.


All the turbo charging experience they have was for niche vehicles with low volume sales with exception of diesel engines. However diesel turbo is not a gasoline turbo.

The Cruze is mass consumer sales.

They are not Subaru, Saab, Volvo, VW who all have been doing this for years and are well experienced for a significant portion of their vehicle line.

The problem with the 2.8L V6 was tuning map was not well suited for regular fuel not the turbo design itself. No one sure if Cadillac or Saab hold the bag on that problem. Engine tuning is vehicle specific and typically the auto maker.

The Grand National is a neat engine that likely will never get produced again. Being that it was large displacement coupled to a lower pressure turbo with more primitive control.

Modern turbo's like the Cruze are very tiny motors with a delicate balance trying to remove lag, optimize fuel and keep a low compression ratio. Few car makers out there in the US have extensive experience with this combination.

Lastly all the engineers at GM who designed the items you cite are long since retired, furlowed or upper management.
 
I'm going to keep running premium in mine simply because it's a high-pressure turbo on a tiny engine in a 3170 lb. (weight with me, 10 lbs of recyclables, and 9 gallons of gas) car. I don't want the engine going "boom" at 80k miles thanks to a chipped piston.

The better fuel economy, lower cost per mile, and better off-boost power are all additional reasons for me to run premium.
 
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
GM 2.0 Ecotec turbo has been used in Saabs for several years...


And I LOVE MINE. Ran regular the whole time on a recent road trip down south, and while I saw a small MPG hit, nothing drivability wise really. Then again, we drive lightly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Data logging regular vs. premium
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Chris142
K
2022 Subaru WRX HPL PCMO 5w-30 5000 miles
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Fa24wrx
RandR10
VP Racing J20A Utility Tractor Fluid, Kioti LB2204
Replies
8
Views
4K
IndyIan
Hermann
One month with the Moccamaster Thermal.
Replies
3
Views
491
Hermann
D
Cheap math on supposed longevity benefits of premium vs. regular
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
8K
nicholas
Back
Top