mileage till empty
09-25-2008, 01:36 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 08-08-07
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mileage till empty
hey just recently I filled my gas tank with shell 91 and
All the other times it reads 300 mile fuel range but for sum
Odd reason this time it reads 260 mile fuel range all I did was
Use fuel injectors cleaner and topped off the tank
Anyone had this problem bfore or have any idea wat the
Cause is thanks
Sorry mods if I put this thread in the wrong section
All the other times it reads 300 mile fuel range but for sum
Odd reason this time it reads 260 mile fuel range all I did was
Use fuel injectors cleaner and topped off the tank
Anyone had this problem bfore or have any idea wat the
Cause is thanks
Sorry mods if I put this thread in the wrong section
09-25-2008, 01:37 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Texas
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey just recently I filled my gas tank with shell 91 and
All the other times it reads 300 mile fuel range but for sum
Odd reason this time it reads 260 mile fuel range all I did was
Use fuel injectors cleaner and topped off the tank
Anyone had this problem bfore or have any idea wat the
Cause is thanks
Sorry mods if I put this thread in the wrong section
All the other times it reads 300 mile fuel range but for sum
Odd reason this time it reads 260 mile fuel range all I did was
Use fuel injectors cleaner and topped off the tank
Anyone had this problem bfore or have any idea wat the
Cause is thanks
Sorry mods if I put this thread in the wrong section
09-25-2008, 01:52 PM
#5
The range feature is just a guess first of all. Everything that affects mileage affects this readout. You should just reset your average mileage and see what the range goes to after a few miles of your normal driving.
91 octane does seem a little high on the octane for a 2.2L but that doesnt mean it doesnt need it, firstly the L61 does in fact respond very well to 89 octane as opposed to 87. it stops the ecm from potentially using the low octane table and/or pulling timing under full load. My car loves 89. So do lots of other 2.2s I know of. if the engine is high mileage, poorly maintained, has a history of low quality fuel, etc, etc, its perfectly reasonable to think that it may want to run on 91(this WOULD indicate a problem though, to be clear)
91 octane does seem a little high on the octane for a 2.2L but that doesnt mean it doesnt need it, firstly the L61 does in fact respond very well to 89 octane as opposed to 87. it stops the ecm from potentially using the low octane table and/or pulling timing under full load. My car loves 89. So do lots of other 2.2s I know of. if the engine is high mileage, poorly maintained, has a history of low quality fuel, etc, etc, its perfectly reasonable to think that it may want to run on 91(this WOULD indicate a problem though, to be clear)
09-25-2008, 04:39 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 08-08-07
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
damn dealer told me that its the best you can use
he told me to never use 87 my car never seen 87 by\ut has seen
89 and it seems 91 lasts the longest
The range feature is just a guess first of all. Everything that affects mileage affects this readout. You should just reset your average mileage and see what the range goes to after a few miles of your normal driving.
91 octane does seem a little high on the octane for a 2.2L but that doesnt mean it doesnt need it, firstly the L61 does in fact respond very well to 89 octane as opposed to 87. it stops the ecm from potentially using the low octane table and/or pulling timing under full load. My car loves 89. So do lots of other 2.2s I know of. if the engine is high mileage, poorly maintained, has a history of low quality fuel, etc, etc, its perfectly reasonable to think that it may want to run on 91(this WOULD indicate a problem though, to be clear)
91 octane does seem a little high on the octane for a 2.2L but that doesnt mean it doesnt need it, firstly the L61 does in fact respond very well to 89 octane as opposed to 87. it stops the ecm from potentially using the low octane table and/or pulling timing under full load. My car loves 89. So do lots of other 2.2s I know of. if the engine is high mileage, poorly maintained, has a history of low quality fuel, etc, etc, its perfectly reasonable to think that it may want to run on 91(this WOULD indicate a problem though, to be clear)
and i have yet to see it read 400 miles fule range like others i guess its time to go get the dealer to take a look at it which they just neglate you and send you on your way
Last edited by stretch89; 09-25-2008 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
09-25-2008, 05:23 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-22-06
Location: S.FL
Posts: 8,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the way i understand it is this.
the l61 is made for 87, tuned for it, runs best on it.
the reason why is that its actually HARDER for a car to burn higher octane fuel.
so it wouldnt be unreasonable to believe that your car would make more power on 87.
the l61 is made for 87, tuned for it, runs best on it.
the reason why is that its actually HARDER for a car to burn higher octane fuel.
so it wouldnt be unreasonable to believe that your car would make more power on 87.
09-25-2008, 05:42 PM
#9
Wrong. The ECM pulls timing under heavy loads when running 87, it doesnt on 89.
Its tuned to run on it. that doesnt mean it cant benefit from a little more. It says right in the owners to use "87 octane or higher" doesnt mention anything about 87 only, or that higher octane will reduce performance, etc....
Its not harder to burn higher octane fuel. higher octane fuel is more resistant to detonation.Which simply means its less likely to start to combust with out a spark.
No its not unreasonable to think that, but it would be a little flawed. The lowest octane GM(or any maker) recommends is 87, this is also the lowest widely available octane, agreed?
Our ECMs have a low octane table and a high octane from which to choose running parameters. Now if the 2.2 manual says that the lowest you should EVER run is 87, and that you can damage your engine by running lower octane, and this damage isnt covered under warranty, wouldnt it logically follow that there would be no reason to have the low octane table be tuned for something lower than 87? My point is that it is my opinion based on personal as well as professional experience and 3rd party observation that the 2.2 has a high octane table loaded that will let the engine benefit from the use of higher than 87 octane fuel.
I just noticed this, Depending on how long you ran the fuel injector and fuel system treatments through, and what type/how much of it you used, that these cleaners are actually the culpirt for the noticeably lower range. Some cleaners can actually set P0171 lean codes, and this will obviously adversely affect your mileage. Clear it and start over.
the reason why is that its actually HARDER for a car to burn higher octane fuel.
so it wouldnt be unreasonable to believe that your car would make more power on 87.
so it wouldnt be unreasonable to believe that your car would make more power on 87.
No its not unreasonable to think that, but it would be a little flawed. The lowest octane GM(or any maker) recommends is 87, this is also the lowest widely available octane, agreed?
Our ECMs have a low octane table and a high octane from which to choose running parameters. Now if the 2.2 manual says that the lowest you should EVER run is 87, and that you can damage your engine by running lower octane, and this damage isnt covered under warranty, wouldnt it logically follow that there would be no reason to have the low octane table be tuned for something lower than 87? My point is that it is my opinion based on personal as well as professional experience and 3rd party observation that the 2.2 has a high octane table loaded that will let the engine benefit from the use of higher than 87 octane fuel.
I just noticed this, Depending on how long you ran the fuel injector and fuel system treatments through, and what type/how much of it you used, that these cleaners are actually the culpirt for the noticeably lower range. Some cleaners can actually set P0171 lean codes, and this will obviously adversely affect your mileage. Clear it and start over.
Last edited by Maven; 09-25-2008 at 08:29 PM.
09-25-2008, 07:28 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: North Carlonia
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our ECMs have a low octane table and a high octane from which to choose running parameters. Now if the 2.2 manual says that the lowest you should EVER run is 87, and that you can damage your engine by doing this, and this damage isnt covered under warranty, wouldnt it logically follow that there would be no reason to have the low octane table be tuned for something lower than 87? My point is that it is my opinion based on personal as well as professional experience and 3rd party observation that the 2.2 has a high octane table loaded that will let the engine benefit from the use of higher than 87 octane fuel.
I also prefer not to spend the extra 15 cents a gallon for what may get me 2 hp only near the readline under WOT.
Last edited by YSUsteven; 09-25-2008 at 07:28 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
09-25-2008, 08:17 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-09-08
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have any engine mods and mine does that. I live downtown in a city of 300,000 people and all I do is city drive. I run 87 Octane. When I fill up completly my fuel range reads from 280-335 miles. I'm REALLY lucky to get 250 miles before I fill up when the guage reads 1/8 tank. It generally talks 10-11 gallons to fill up at that point. The DIC says my mileage is 22-24 MPG depending on the tank.
09-25-2008, 08:28 PM
#13
Sorry, fixed it. shouldve said this:
I know there are a few, I said it wasnt WIDELY available and that it isnt recommended to use. I havent seen 86 octane fuel in NJ since the 90's.
I fully understand this, but what you need to keep in mind is that while it may get you 2hp at redline, it MAY also get you 2mpg, and if it does its well worth $.15/gallon.(this applies to fuel in general and not octane specifically. for example my car loves Shell, but loses at LEAST 2mpg if I switch to lower quality fuel)
Originally Posted by maven
Now if the 2.2 manual says that the lowest you should EVER run is 87, and that you can damage your engine by running lower octane, and this damage isnt covered under warranty
And there are few stations where you can get anything less than 87.
I also prefer not to spend the extra 15 cents a gallon for what may get me 2 hp only near the readline under WOT.
09-25-2008, 08:29 PM
#14
Of course you can use higher than 87. It just has no benefits or negatives other than costing more on a car that is tuned for 87. The key is don't use less than 87 because it can cause damage eventually. You can buy 86 in Detroit. I think some places can still get 85.
09-25-2008, 08:36 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-24-07
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 1,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my experience that fuel injection cleaner doesn't really work. my shop has a machine that cleans the injectors. a few years ago i used it on my maxima and i felt a difference and saw a difference in my mpg. most of those quick fix mixtures do not solve the problem. i would highly reccomend cleaning the injectors the right way, it was worth the money for me.
09-26-2008, 02:12 AM
#17
Stop jerking each other off and just use 87. You're not driving top fuel dragsters you drive Chevrolet Cobalts. IF you want paypal me the extra money you are wasting at the pump, otherwise just use 87 like everyone else does in these damn cars. 
Christ.
Christ.
09-28-2008, 09:35 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-27-07
Location: USA
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the L61 does in fact respond very well to 89 octane as opposed to 87.
it stops the ecm from potentially using the low octane table and/or pulling timing under full load.
My car loves 89.
it may want to run on 91(this WOULD indicate a problem though, to be clear)
09-28-2008, 12:23 PM
#21
My car is properly maintained, sets ZERO trouble codes, has ALWAYS used TopTier fuel from Shell, and my intake valves were still sparkling clean ar 6500 miles when I did my manifold.
You know that a stock SS/SC is designed to run on 87 without causing any damage too, right? Why dont all you guys run on 87 then and stop wasting money???
Or how about you just keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keys when youve got nothing productive OR accurate to contribute when it comes to the L61......
09-29-2008, 08:01 PM
#22
Wow, wtf is wrong with some of you people here? Why is it so wrong that some people run higher than 87 octane? Do you really have an issue with the fact that a 2.2L can benefit from 89 octane? You feel threatened? **** its not like I am sitting here saying I run 100 octane and since i do I am dynoing at 250 to the wheels. Get a grip. I am saying that 89 octane keeps the ECM from pulling timing under full throttle acceleration. Yeah the cars runs "fine" on 87, but Ive seen the ECM pull anywhere from 2-5 degrees of advance from nearly new cars with high quality fuel, and approaching double digits on cars with more miles. But you know what, if I can choose to spend $1.80 more per TANK and not have the ECM meddling with the timing, well guess what, I'll do that.
My car is properly maintained, sets ZERO trouble codes, has ALWAYS used TopTier fuel from Shell, and my intake valves were still sparkling clean ar 6500 miles when I did my manifold.
You know that a stock SS/SC is designed to run on 87 without causing any damage too, right? Why dont all you guys run on 87 then and stop wasting money???
Or how about you just keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keys when youve got nothing productive OR accurate to contribute when it comes to the L61......
My car is properly maintained, sets ZERO trouble codes, has ALWAYS used TopTier fuel from Shell, and my intake valves were still sparkling clean ar 6500 miles when I did my manifold.
You know that a stock SS/SC is designed to run on 87 without causing any damage too, right? Why dont all you guys run on 87 then and stop wasting money???
Or how about you just keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keys when youve got nothing productive OR accurate to contribute when it comes to the L61......
The LNF and LSJ are designed to run 91. They will adjust the timing if you run lower to prevent damage but it will still cost you some power.
09-29-2008, 11:31 PM
#24
Well, the fact is that you are wrong. It absolutley does pull timing on 87. Ive seen it on multiple Cobalts, a G5 and multipe Cavs, I also know of quite a few people(at least one of them fairly widely known to those who are interested in NA ECOs) who have seen, experience and even logged this "unbelievable phenomenon"
09-30-2008, 09:51 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-09-08
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the fact is that you are wrong. It absolutley does pull timing on 87. Ive seen it on multiple Cobalts, a G5 and multipe Cavs, I also know of quite a few people(at least one of them fairly widely known to those who are interested in NA ECOs) who have seen, experience and even logged this "unbelievable phenomenon"