Premium in a 5.3?

[DTOMKIDD]

When I bought my truck I ran a few tanks of regular gas and never really liked how the truck ran. It didn't run bad, just not satisfactory for me. I made the switch to mid grade and the truck is running WAY better but now I'm looking into premium.

 

I'd like to know who's running premium in the 5.3 and what gains , if any, they noticed. I'm hoping for better gas mileage and little more pep. I'm considering it since the price to fill a tank with premium is only a few more dollars than to fill up with mid grade.

 

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Rawyzf]

I'd run e85 if you have Flex Fuel.

 

With premium though, I agree, truck just ran better.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[DTOMKIDD]

I'd run e85 if you have Flex Fuel.

 

With premium though, I agree, truck just ran better.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

My truck isn't flex fuel, unfortunately. Did you see any noticeable improvements on premium?

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Donstar]

There is a lengthy thread or two on this forum about octane and performance. Some healthy debates favoring regular and premium. I choose to run mid-grade (89) with my 4.3 and feel I am getting enough improved performance to justify the extra cost.

[Rawyzf]

My truck isn't flex fuel, unfortunately. Did you see any noticeable improvements on premium?

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I don't have hard numbers, but I thought it just drove and reacted better on Prem.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[muddkatt]

I run the 93 in EVERYTHING I own. Many years ago I did a test using 4 vehicles, a 1986 Nissan truck 4 cylinder 5 speed, a 1989 Grand Am, Quad 4 - 5 speed, a 1991 Suburban 5.7L - automatic, and a 1995 Silverado 4.3 - 5 speed.

 

They all got better mileage and had more power, especially the trucks that were pulling trailers about 75% of the time. Each vehicle was ran about 1000 miles on 87 octane and then about 1000 miles on 93. Back then the difference in price was about 20 cents per gallon. The test showed that once the cost of 87 crossed the $2.00 per gallon point, it was more economical to run the 93. Under 2 bucks it was more economical to run the 87. Remember, that was with the 20 cents split.

 

My guess would be that the 40-60 cent difference between the 87 and the 93 would make the 87 the most economical, but I refuse to run anything that would cause the timing to be retarded, or does not have the injector cleaners. ( I know the new engine are DI).

 

Those of us that pulls trailers KNOWS what the engines sounds like when the pinging begins from low octane fuel. Even if it does not hurt the engine, its like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

[DTOMKIDD]

I run the 93 in EVERYTHING I own. Many years ago I did a test using 4 vehicles, a 1986 Nissan truck 4 cylinder 5 speed, a 1989 Grand Am, Quad 4 - 5 speed, a 1991 Suburban 5.7L - automatic, and a 1995 Silverado 4.3 - 5 speed.

 

They all got better mileage and had more power, especially the trucks that were pulling trailers about 75% of the time. Each vehicle was ran about 1000 miles on 87 octane and then about 1000 miles on 93. Back then the difference in price was about 20 cents per gallon. The test showed that once the cost of 87 crossed the $2.00 per gallon point, it was more economical to run the 93. Under 2 bucks it was more economical to run the 87. Remember, that was with the 20 cents split.

 

My guess would be that the 40-60 cent difference between the 87 and the 93 would make the 87 the most economical, but I refuse to run anything that would cause the timing to be retarded, or does not have the injector cleaners. ( I know the new engine are DI).

 

Those of us that pulls trailers KNOWS what the engines sounds like when the pinging begins from low octane fuel. Even if it does not hurt the engine, its like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

That sounds promising. I don't worry about the cost split between higher grade gas and regular since I refuse to run regular. I base my split off of mid grade and premium and the cost difference to fill a tank is so small between the two I think I'm going to make the switch for a few months to see if it really has some improvement.

[amxguy1970]

When it isn't tuned for it the gains are minimal and not cost efficient. You might hear some less pinging if you tow hot, heavy and in steeper areas but chances are that won't be an issue. HP gains will be in the decimal percentage and mpg gains will be very minimal depending on the amount of ethanol used. If you are not racing or towing I would run the lower grade and just run a fuel system cleaner through it a few times a year at a few bucks as opposed to a few extra bucks at each fill up for premium. Those that say they notice a big difference are just experiencing a placebo effect, tested data confirms premium in a regular vehicle is minimal to no gain (both dyno and mpg) and if premium is required will give a little hit in both (when recommended it is less of an impact).

 

Tyler

[07Softail]

There is a lengthy thread or two on this forum about octane and performance. Some healthy debates favoring regular and premium. I choose to run mid-grade (89) with my 4.3 and feel I am getting enough improved performance to justify the extra cost.

 

Black Bear has told several people to run mid grade even without a tune.

 

RT

[DTOMKIDD]

When it isn't tuned for it the gains are minimal and not cost efficient. You might hear some less pinging if you tow hot, heavy and in steeper areas but chances are that won't be an issue. HP gains will be in the decimal percentage and mpg gains will be very minimal depending on the amount of ethanol used. If you are not racing or towing I would run the lower grade and just run a fuel system cleaner through it a few times a year at a few bucks as opposed to a few extra bucks at each fill up for premium. Those that say they notice a big difference are just experiencing a placebo effect, tested data confirms premium in a regular vehicle is minimal to no gain (both dyno and mpg) and if premium is required will give a little hit in both (when recommended it is less of an impact).

 

Tyler

That's exactly what I've been doing. I usually try to run fuel system cleaner through a tank of gas a month since I do a lot of driving.

 

Do you think with a tune it would be more beneficial to run premium? Whether tuned or not I don't expect to see any crazy differences with premium it's more just curiosity than seeking performance gains.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[SouthernSilveradoGuy85]

I ran 87 for awhile, but once I saw how high compression my 5.3 is I figured mid grade would just be better for it. I don't know if it's the placebo effect, but it seems to run a little better. Not talking about HP gain, it just seems to run a little smoother and better in general. I don't think I'm going to try 91 premium because I don't know if the cost is worth it from 89 to 91. I could be wrong, but just how I'm thinking about it.

[Colossus]

You don't need to run fuel system cleaner every month if you are using top tier fuel. In fact I wouldn't run it thru anymore than once every 6 months minimum.

[Billy346]

My previous truck, an F150 with the he 5.4 would rattle, knock, and ping with 87 octane fuel. I started running 93 and it ran like a champ: no knocking, pinging, or rattling; plus it had more power.

 

My '98 Camaro's LS1 only has 10:1 compression and it takes premium. With the 5.3's 11:1, premium is a no brainer in my mind.

 

The only 87 my Silverado has seen is the gas that the dealer put in it. That being said, it runs great!

[cbrsilv15]

I ran a couple tanks of mid grade and didn't notice a thing. 87 for me.

[Aaron1085]

What kind of "fuel cleaner" are you guys running? I may swap to mid grade for a while and see how it goes.

 

I do mostly town driving.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk