Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > I4 Turbo LTG Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Phastek Performance


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2018, 07:19 PM   #15
6th_gen_gino
 
Drives: 2016 camaro 2.0t gray
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Jacksonville,Fl
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
I understand that angle and can appreciate it. I just didnt think if it because I do things a little differently. I've been seening what some of you guys have been doing those little motors ,and that's cool. If it allows you the means to get in the game that's awesome.

My post was simply of the view looking of both motor being stock. Thanks for clearing it up
6th_gen_gino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 12:02 AM   #16
rorymick
 
rorymick's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Camaro RS 1LT 2.0L Turbo
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 349
The four banger crowd is ruthlesssss.

I haven't even got to test drive an LGX Camaro yet but I want to! The engines have pretty different powerbands too which I'd like to feel out the LGX powerband.


LGX sounds better IMO lol definitely debatable since we have that turbo sound ❤️
__________________
'16 1LT 2.0T RS - Catless DP, Intake, Tune/ Eibach springs FE3 shocks/ BMR front bar FE4 rear bar/ Xpel'd front end, CP Reload sealed/ Radenso Pro M.
rorymick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 12:13 AM   #17
Evil-Bee-NH
603 Camaros
 
Evil-Bee-NH's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 NGM I4 1LT Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 6,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorymick View Post
The four banger crowd is ruthlesssss.

I haven't even got to test drive an LGX Camaro yet but I want to! The engines have pretty different powerbands too which I'd like to feel out the LGX powerband.


LGX sounds better IMO lol definitely debatable since we have that turbo sound ❤️
Course the LGX sounds better stock for stock they get the NPP option. You can't hear the turbo until you install a CAI really. But honestly both cars are amazing machines and i stand by whatever choice someone makes just make educated ones fuel mileage as your decision maker between I4 and V6 is a horrible factor.
__________________

MY 2017 I4 CAMARO BUILD JOURNAL | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | 316RWHP - 385 RWTQ HPTUNERS DYNO TUNE | 12.693s @ 105MPH 1/4 Mile

Last edited by Evil-Bee-NH; 01-29-2018 at 01:22 AM.
Evil-Bee-NH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 12:20 PM   #18
dekes1
 
Drives: Camaro like
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
Not sure how a question about octane turned into a v6 vs T2.0 pissing match but to bring it back inline...
GM actually recommends 99 octane for the LTG when tracking the car.
So in short, the higher the octane the better and never run 87
dekes1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 12:43 PM   #19
Evil-Bee-NH
603 Camaros
 
Evil-Bee-NH's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 NGM I4 1LT Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 6,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by dekes1 View Post
Not sure how a question about octane turned into a v6 vs T2.0 pissing match but to bring it back inline...
GM actually recommends 99 octane for the LTG when tracking the car.
So in short, the higher the octane the better and never run 87
Sadly trying to keep it from being the pissing match it was . You should run premium in these cars no matter the trim lvl and engine choice for so many reasons least among tjem is fuel mileage because in the long run running premium will probably help the car run smoother longer.
__________________

MY 2017 I4 CAMARO BUILD JOURNAL | YOUTUBE | INSTAGRAM | 316RWHP - 385 RWTQ HPTUNERS DYNO TUNE | 12.693s @ 105MPH 1/4 Mile
Evil-Bee-NH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2018, 01:11 PM   #20
motorhead


 
Drives: Love the one you're with
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by dekes1 View Post
Not sure how a question about octane turned into a v6 vs T2.0 pissing match but to bring it back inline...
GM actually recommends 99 octane for the LTG when tracking the car.
So in short, the higher the octane the better and never run 87
So where does GM post recommending 99 for the 2.0t? It says that no where in the owners manual nor does it even list anything at all about the 2.0T in the High Performance owner's manual supplement. Besides. No one said anything about running 87 in the 2.0T nor was there a pissing match. It's called a discussion. That's what forums are here for. I asked a question that pertained to stock vehicles and got answer. I'll wait for you to post your source from GM on using 99 in the 2.0T. They dont even say to use that in the ZL1 anywhere.

I could see running 93 in the V6 if you are running it hard and GM does recommended it for that purpose. For normal everyday use 93 is a waste of money. If it was required for everyday use , GM would list it as such.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 02:00 AM   #21
DanSnow
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1LT 2.0T
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 62
I run 91 as that is what is readily available around me. I have experienced no issues. But I wouldn't put in anything lower.
DanSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 10:33 PM   #22
ChicagoTommy

 
Drives: 2017 Camaro; 2017 Acadia Denali
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago, IL/Williams Bay WI
Posts: 1,022
A lot of people don't have the first clue how fuel works. Here are two indisputable facts.

1. "Premium" does not mean 'better'.
2. "Premium" does not mean 'more power'.

Octane isn't magical fairy dust. It is purely a measurement of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. You want to run the lowest octane fuel possible, safely. Higher octane fuels as a function of their design are more difficult to light off.

Your ECU doesn't know, or particularly care what octane fuel is in the tank. All it cares about is knock. I'm not talking about slight blips of Knock Retard during a WOT pass of drag racing. I mean real, actual, piston rocking, bang, bang, boom, KNOCK. That is another typically misunderstood section of the ECU. Most don't understand how incredibly sensitive knock sensors are, nor do they comprehend what the sensor is listening for. Your knock sensor is listening for the harmonic noises typically associated PRIOR to real knock events occurring. There is a super simple test to identify if you have real knock, ready for it? Is your CEL currently blinking? No- Then you probably don't have real knock. Yes- Then, duh, take your foot off the gas and find the problem. I know this is a super simplistic explanation, and it's not intended for anyone with advanced knowledge of how the ECU works.

Back to octane ratings... There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with running 87. Not a single damned thing. Personally, I run it from November to April without issue. Heat is the root cause of pre-ignition. If it's not hot outside, and the engine isn't running hot for a different reason, there is no issue with using 87. If you're planning driving aggressively with judicious throttle applications for an extended period of time, obviously you should run a higher octane fuel as there will be more heat in the engine. For anyone just commuting to work and running errands, there is absolutely no reason to spend an extra $1+ per gallon. Remember that the LTG isn't a super high compression race engine. It's a regular street engine, driven by regular average people. GM knows that, and tunes the engine accordingly.
__________________
This is in no way a personal attack or confrontation, and is not necessarily the view
of the management or sponsors, and the thoughts contained herein are mine,
and is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings or ruin their delicate self esteem, or
to invalidate anyone's personal views or thoughts, nor is it a condemnation of anyone's
race, religion, sex, sexual preferences, handicaps, or intellectual abilities.
ChicagoTommy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 11:05 PM   #23
motorhead


 
Drives: Love the one you're with
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoTommy View Post
A lot of people don't have the first clue how fuel works. Here are two indisputable facts.

1. "Premium" does not mean 'better'.
2. "Premium" does not mean 'more power'.

Octane isn't magical fairy dust. It is purely a measurement of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. You want to run the lowest octane fuel possible, safely. Higher octane fuels as a function of their design are more difficult to light off.

Your ECU doesn't know, or particularly care what octane fuel is in the tank. All it cares about is knock. I'm not talking about slight blips of Knock Retard during a WOT pass of drag racing. I mean real, actual, piston rocking, bang, bang, boom, KNOCK. That is another typically misunderstood section of the ECU. Most don't understand how incredibly sensitive knock sensors are, nor do they comprehend what the sensor is listening for. Your knock sensor is listening for the harmonic noises typically associated PRIOR to real knock events occurring. There is a super simple test to identify if you have real knock, ready for it? Is your CEL currently blinking? No- Then you probably don't have real knock. Yes- Then, duh, take your foot off the gas and find the problem. I know this is a super simplistic explanation, and it's not intended for anyone with advanced knowledge of how the ECU works.

Back to octane ratings... There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with running 87. Not a single damned thing. Personally, I run it from November to April without issue. Heat is the root cause of pre-ignition. If it's not hot outside, and the engine isn't running hot for a different reason, there is no issue with using 87. If you're planning driving aggressively with judicious throttle applications for an extended period of time, obviously you should run a higher octane fuel as there will be more heat in the engine. For anyone just commuting to work and running errands, there is absolutely no reason to spend an extra $1+ per gallon. Remember that the LTG isn't a super high compression race engine. It's a regular street engine, driven by regular average people. GM knows that, and tunes the engine accordingly.
See Billy Idol gets it. Although 93 is recommended for the 2.0T all the time. It offers 87 as a reduced performance option as long as it doesnt cause knock. Most likely do to the compression and boost it runs. I go with what the manufacturer recommends when it comes to octane. I dont want to waste money running higher than needed, but I also dont need to cheap out and gamble. I've seen the aftermath of detonation. It isnt worth 35 cents a gallon to me.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:41 AM   #24
ChicagoTommy

 
Drives: 2017 Camaro; 2017 Acadia Denali
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago, IL/Williams Bay WI
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
See Billy Idol gets it. Although 93 is recommended for the 2.0T all the time. It offers 87 as a reduced performance option as long as it doesnt cause knock. Most likely do to the compression and boost it runs. I go with what the manufacturer recommends when it comes to octane. I dont want to waste money running higher than needed, but I also dont need to cheap out and gamble. I've seen the aftermath of detonation. It isnt worth 35 cents a gallon to me.
Sick Wedding Singer reference, bro.

As far as 87 octane reducing performance... Like I said, the ECU doesn't know or care what fuel you put in the tank. A very simplistic view is that there are only 2 timing strategies contained in the ECU (High Octane Timing Table and Low Octane Timing Table), and the ECU will always try to place you onto the higher map, until it senses pre-ignition harmonic events occurring regularly. As such, you wouldn't notice an actual power difference unless you tried to drive your car at 10/10ths for an extended period of time on a warm/hot day. Even then, table modifiers would come into play as well to further control pre-ignition on the High Octane Timing Table before dropping you to Low Octane Timing Table hell. Be mindful that the difference in power being discussed here is less than 10!

I should have been clearer in my last post, don't run 87 if you're expecting to do any 'spirited' driving. My point is that you don't need 93 for typical daily driving activities, and especially not during cooler outside temps. It may only be a .35 cent difference where you're located, but when I filled up the SS today, it was $1.35 difference!!!! Running 87 during the winter will save me $832 in fuel costs. $1.00 per gallon difference on average X 16 gallons typical fill up X 26 weeks = $832!!! That's an extra weekend in Vegas for the little lady and I!!!
__________________
This is in no way a personal attack or confrontation, and is not necessarily the view
of the management or sponsors, and the thoughts contained herein are mine,
and is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings or ruin their delicate self esteem, or
to invalidate anyone's personal views or thoughts, nor is it a condemnation of anyone's
race, religion, sex, sexual preferences, handicaps, or intellectual abilities.
ChicagoTommy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 09:19 AM   #25
dekes1
 
Drives: Camaro like
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
So where does GM post recommending 99 for the 2.0t? It says that no where in the owners manual nor does it even list anything at all about the 2.0T i
Yes, actually it does. And in two places for that matter. Well, to be transparent, it does in my ATS manual. Perhaps GM assumes no one would track a Camaro (I kid I kid!)
Attached Images
 

Last edited by dekes1; 02-01-2018 at 09:29 AM.
dekes1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 09:55 AM   #26
motorhead


 
Drives: Love the one you're with
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by dekes1 View Post
Yes, actually it does. And in two places for that matter. Well, to be transparent, it does in my ATS manual. Perhaps GM assumes no one would track a Camaro (I kid I kid!)
Yeah, i can't find that in any publications for the Camaro. Is the 2.0t the same spec in the ATS as the Camaro? I dont know because I dont follow Caddies much. Its odd to me that even the supercharged ZL1 only requires 93 even for competitive driving. But if you read Chicago Tommy's post above you'll see why that is. Our entire point is that 87 is only required in the V6 for normal use and anything else is a waste of money. That's why I see no reason to own the turbo four unless your intensions are to modify it.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 10:26 AM   #27
Kise
 
Kise's Avatar
 
Drives: 16' 2SS, 06' Silverado SS
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 345
Kise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 10:53 AM   #28
dekes1
 
Drives: Camaro like
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
Yeah, i can't find that in any publications for the Camaro. Is the 2.0t the same spec in the ATS as the Camaro? I dont know because I dont follow Caddies much. Its odd to me that even the supercharged ZL1 only requires 93 even for competitive driving. But if you read Chicago Tommy's post above you'll see why that is. Our entire point is that 87 is only required in the V6 for normal use and anything else is a waste of money. That's why I see no reason to own the turbo four unless your intensions are to modify it.
I tend to agree. The V6 has a better power curve, sounds way better and is historically less troublesome. I chose the 2.0 over the 3.6 explicitly due to the aftermarket support and the ability to make big power. For those folks that don't want to void a warranty, the 3.6 is the better choice hands down.

To your question, the Caddy and Camaro LTG are identical in every way including the tune.
dekes1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.