2.4L LE5 Performance Tech 16 valve 171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque

Gas for the 2.4L

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 11, 2005 | 07:37 PM
  #1  
MikeSS's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-09-05
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto Canada
Gas for the 2.4L

I just read in the owners manual the 2.4L is supposed to run on premium. Opps, well, at least tank #2 will be the correct gas.
Reply
Old Sep 11, 2005 | 10:10 PM
  #2  
hailezecomet's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 09-07-05
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Goderich, On
gas for SS

I just got an SS(2.4L) and i was told to put regular gas in it. Where abouts did you find info on the premium gas?
Reply
Old Sep 11, 2005 | 11:18 PM
  #3  
MikeSS's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-09-05
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto Canada
In the owners manual section 5 page 5. I was told regular too, but when I looked in the owners manual, it said 2,2L runs on 87 octane and 2.4L & 2.0L S/C run off 91 octane
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 03:14 AM
  #4  
phxSS's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-20-05
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
From: Buckeye, Az
Yes it does, due to the high compression.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 04:31 AM
  #5  
ThEChEat's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 08-29-05
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Athens, AL
It's exactly like the SS SC'd, it can run on regular but will experience some power loss. Of course, it won't be as much of a loss as it is for the SC'd, but it might lose some.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 11:34 AM
  #6  
b-spot's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-15-04
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
From: Calgary, AB
At high elevations you should experience no power loss using 87.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 06:51 PM
  #7  
avro206's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Originally Posted by b-spot
At high elevations you should experience no power loss using 87.
umm....how do you figure? I thought huigher elevations exaggerated the situation?

In my okd car---87 323---it pinged under heavy throttle on 87. I out 89 in that and no ping. I run the premium in the SS. 0.05 more then I was paying, so no big deal.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 07:18 PM
  #8  
vB00STw's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-10-05
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
From: Long Island, NY
For the SS/SC it says:

Cobalt SS Supercharged will operate with 87 octane unleaded fuel. However, a power loss will be noticeably felt by the driver.
For the 2.2 its says 87

And for the 2.4 it says
not yet published
All information was taken from http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/specifications/
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 08:40 PM
  #9  
MikeSS's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-09-05
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto Canada
Originally Posted by SuPeR ChArGeD 08
For the SS/SC it says:



For the 2.2 its says 87

And for the 2.4 it says

All information was taken from http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/specifications/

Yeah, Chevy's website says the 2.4L isn't even out yet, but I own one. I am just telling you what I read straight out of the owners manual, I could scan it out.

B-Spot, well, I am at 600ft above sea level, so I think I need the premium.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 09:45 PM
  #10  
Ardskoay's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 01-04-05
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: PA USA
I run 87 in my 2.4 and have found no problems. Performance wise it was not a big difference, but that was when the car was brand new. It has gotten faster lately, and maybe the 91 will make a bigger difference now. But they only sell 87,89, and 93 in this area. So, maybe that would be even a bit faster, or not. I am not sure. What does everyone else think?
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 09:48 PM
  #11  
avro206's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-17-04
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
well the 2.4L is rated at 167hp in the G6 and that just says 87 octane.

So it might be worth 4hp,a bit of torque--at peak rpm that is. Hard to say excatly without talking to an engineer who worked on the 2.4L.

Well I bought the 2.4L SS cause it was the best I could do---so I want all the hp I can get!
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 10:59 PM
  #12  
Chevypowered's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-05-05
Posts: 2,303
Likes: 0
From: Fort Collins, CO
Originally Posted by b-spot
At high elevations you should experience no power loss using 87.

I think there is like a two point difference so 91 is like 93 at least here there is, but you do lose 3% per 1000 feet. I'm at 7000 feet, I'll cry when i get to see level and gain that back. Ofcoarse for superchargers and turbos you don't lose as much as naturally aspirated engines.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2005 | 11:56 PM
  #13  
MikeSS's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-09-05
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto Canada
Yeah, since it is the same price as other companies 91, I'll just run sunoco ultra 94
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RaginChopsuey
War Stories
16
Oct 27, 2015 01:27 PM
biniecki
Problems/Service/Maintenance
8
Oct 25, 2015 02:23 PM
Adiaz1ss
Problems/Service/Maintenance
4
Sep 26, 2015 11:51 PM
GBRunner24
Featured Car Showcase
3
Sep 26, 2015 06:44 PM
roth
Problems/Service/Maintenance
2
Sep 26, 2015 12:16 PM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 PM.