2017 Escalade/Denali L86 "requires" 93 octane - your experience?

[Joseph Garcia]

Well, I believe that we've all expressed and discussed our thoughts and experiences with different octanes for the 6.2.

What's REALLY important here, we discussed and shared our differences in opinions in an open and RESPECTFUL manner. No harassing, no name calling, no personal insults, no Facebook/X BS nonsense.

That's just another reason why this Forum ROCKS!

As @swathdiver stated above, "Love my 6.2s, they put a smile on my face every time we get behind the wheel!". That is exactly the way that I feel about my 6.2.

 

[Geotrash]

So if i use 91 or 93 will i notice a significant increase in power over 87??

Yup. GM's own marketing confirms this. With the '07 Escalade the output of the L92 was 403hp and required premium fuel. The '07 Yukon Denali with the same L92 was rated at 380hp and premium fuel was 'recommended'. The difference? The dyno test was run on regular unleaded for the Denali's numbers to create differentiation between the Escalade and the Denali. So, you'll get minimally 23 more HP on premium fuel but to my butt dyno it feels like more. My two XL Denali's only get premium fuel, regardless of how we're using them.

 

[petethepug]

Two good reasons for low octane fuel in a 6.2L …

1) it’s a rental
2) you need a gallon so you don’t run out on the way to Costco or Walmart for hi octane.

Two bad reasons to run low octane fuel in a 6.2L …

1) you’re gonna keep your truck for a long time.
2) you don’t like the relative who’s inheriting the truck from you.

Seriously though, these things are born as rentals and put into civilian service fairing well all the time. It’s the frugal, save a penny pinchers that run 87 towing or heading up to the snow that kills em.

My cheapskate buddy had his wife run 87 on her Lexus SUV. After 8 years and 100k miles he took it to the dealer for a new alternator because it had a bad bearing. They offered him a smok’n deal for a trade on the current model.

His chest puffing stopped after bragging about his 100k on regular gas ride was diagnosed with a cracked piston and he just told the dealer to pound sand on trading it in.

 

[tooleyondeck]

I don't plan to operate the engine above 3,000 RPM

This sounds almost impossible. I would just ask myself if I wouldn't run 87 in an LT1, why would I in an L86?

 

[91RS]

This sounds almost impossible. I would just ask myself if I wouldn't run 87 in an LT1, why would I in an L86?

Spark knock will happen the most when cruising under slight load anyway.

 

[Marky Dissod]

Well, I believe that we've all expressed and discussed our thoughts and experiences with different octanes for the 6.2L V8s.
What's REALLY important here, we discussed and shared our differences in opinions in an open and RESPECTFUL manner.
No harassing, no name calling, no personal insults, no Facebook/X BS nonsense.
That's just another reason why this Forum ROCKS!

I RESPECTFULLY beg to differ. The above is unfinished.
If one person says it's raining, and another says it ain't, eventually, somebody PLEASE go and check outside!
The respectful discussion is a worthy end in and of itself - but the truth is another equally worthy end.

I don't think those old computers had the ability to do that. We've only recently seen Toyota and Ram if memory serves do that with some of their vehicles.
I'm aware of the tables, sort of, I thought there was one for gas and one for E85 on the GMT900s.
To my way of thinking, there would have to be some kind of sensor to detect the octane rating of the fuel and then run the appropriate table.

Maybe they could've written a program to permanently pull timing if there was so much knock retard under such and such conditions and not reset until a refueling event was detected?
I would think that all that work would slow down the responsiveness of the system and possibly the engine's reaction to such changing conditions.
Just speculating, I'm no automotive software engineer ...

Since GMT800 - and I very strongly suspect since the '97 LS1, but have not personally witnessed-
those old pcms already had separate Low Octane & High Octane Spark Timing tables.
And I know the pcm interpolates between the two; I noticed the differences between copying
the Low Octane Table into the High VS the High Octane Table into the Low
A separate TEMPORARY knock compensation function disables use of the High Octane table,
and applies only to the Low Octane table, but it does not get 'learned' like a fuel trim.
Then there is another SEPARATE ethanol variable compensation table (which I saw but did NOT touch),
which requires a Flex Fuel Concentration / Composition sensor to operate properly.

As @swathdiver stated above,
"Love my 6.2Ls, they put a smile on my face every time we get behind the wheel!".
That is exactly the way that I feel about my 6.2L.

I feel similarly about GM 6.2L V8s. Too bad so many of them have been damaged by GM's shortsighted 'goals' ...

 

[petethepug]

Another round for everybody, it’s on me!

 

[swathdiver]

So if i use 91 or 93 will i notice a significant increase in power over 87??

The engine will run cooler, smoother and won't knock and destroy itself. It'll get better gas mileage too.

As previously stated, the first Denalis were rated for 380 horses on regular fuel and the first Escalades were rated for 403 horsepower on premium fuel.

The bone stock 6.2 in my 2013 Sierra puts down an average of 370 rear wheel horsepower through the traps in the quarter mile at the drag strip on 93 octane fuel.

 

[Bagherra]

Yup. GM's own marketing confirms this. With the '07 Escalade the output of the L92 was 403hp and required premium fuel. The '07 Yukon Denali with the same L92 was rated at 380hp and premium fuel was 'recommended'. The difference? The dyno test was run on regular unleaded for the Denali's numbers to create differentiation between the Escalade and the Denali. So, you'll get minimally 23 more HP on premium fuel but to my butt dyno it feels like more. My two XL Denali's only get premium fuel, regardless of how we're using them.

Well hell!!

 

[MobileHomie]

So if i use 91 or 93 will i notice a significant increase in power over 87??

I need to qualify this with yes, if you have a high compression engine that needs it. My brother continually puts mid grade in his jeep wrangler thinking it "runs better". :/
High octane fuel won't do anything to improve performance of an engine that is not intended for it.
Most folks don't undersand that high octane gas is a lower flash point to inhibit pre-ignition, (knock)

 

[MobileHomie]

Why you sad Marky?
From your posts, I consider you quite knowledgeable, is there something incorrect in my statement?

 

[Marky Dissod]

What you said made me kinda sad - not the same as 'you make me sad'. We cool ...

This used to be true for engines with only one octane spark table in the ecm / pcm (OBD1 L31).
(As for your bro's Wrangler, I've never seen its ecm / pcm files, but if he hasn't timed it from 0MpH-'something',
or tracked the MpGs, then there's no objective way to know if his 'thinking it runs better' is correct, or not.)

Today - actually, since '99, likely earlier - our pcms / ecms have 2 separate spark tables,
one for Lo octane (87), one for Hi (91).
The Lo Octane (87) spark table for the Gen4 6.2L engines seems to have been written for a very lightweight car with very low aero drage (a 'vette).
As a result, using 87 in an L92 / L9H / L94 is not a great idea at best (unless the engine is NOT in an SUV / pickup).
Using 87 and driving like an @r$e has been known to break these engines.
GM did not write those Low octane tables well enough to save those 6.2L V8s from idiots.

Since I've not yet seen the spark tables for any Gen5 V8s yet, I can't be sure either way whether (or not) GM wrote the L86 Low Octane spark tables so that the 6.2L DI could safely tolerate 87 octane regardless of how it's driven.

My take is:
if you use 87 in a GM 6.2L V8, I hope it's because the gas pump you just used had no 91 available,
and that you find 91 at the next available gas pump.
Til then, working (or playing) hard with a 6.2L using 87 is a bad idea at best, even if driven gently -
but if driven GENTLY, your odds of everything being just fine are not nearly as bad as if you leadfoot it on 87.
For best results - durability, longevity, MpG, throttle response / power - 91 is safer and superior.

It is POSSIBLE to tune an L92 / L9H / L94 (DETUNE may be a better word) to run SAFELY using 87, but this can only come at the expense of losing power / torque / MpG etc - and you'd need to find a tuner willing to retard the Low octane table, at a minimum. BlackBear likely will NOT, for example.

I do not know if an L86 (or L87) can be safely DEtuned to work / play hard with 87?
Injection timing is every bit as important as spark timing with Direct Injection engines.
I do know the 5.3L V8s work better using 91 vs 87 though. Depending on the price of 91, it MIGHT be worth it?

 

[RobH]

FWIW, this is a quote from the 2017 Escalade Owners Manual,

"Do not use any fuel labeled E85 or FlexFuel. Do not use gasoline with ethanol levels greater than 15% by volume.

Premium unleaded gasoline...with a posted octane rating of 93 is highly recommended for best performance and fuel economy. Unleaded gasoline with an octane rated as low as 87 can be used. Using unleaded gasoline rated below 93 octane, however, will lead to reduced acceleration and fuel economy. If knocking occurs, use a gasoline rated at 93 octane as soon as possible, otherwise, the engine could be damaged. If heavy knocking is heard when using gasoline with a 93 octane rating, the engine needs service."

Wikipedia says my L83 has an 11.0 to 1 compression ratio and the L86 has an 11.5 to 1 compression ratio. Wikipedia says the 2020+ regular gas 6.6 liter L8T engine for heavy duty applications has a 10.8 to 1 compression ratio, a little less than my L83. The L8T does not use AFM.

The factory 6L80 is not the robust transmission I thought it was, perhaps due only to the cheap factory torque converter combined with the AFM. With the Max Trailering Package and a tow rating of 8,600 pounds, my 3,300 pound travel trailer should not be a challenge.

My 5,400 pound Tahoe does get the same gas mileage on Regular as my 2,400 pound 1964 Corvair got on the factory specified 91 octane Premium. Unfortunately, GM has given us AFM and stamped steel torque converters with thin linings which will probably outlast most of the original purchasers but may bite those of us who run their vehicles longer or ask more of them.

With the 6L80 and slightly fuel saving AFM, my Tahoe has not been as robust as I expected. So I have a factory reman transmission and am looking to modify the engine to ditch the AFM. Oh well.

 

[Marky Dissod]

Wikipedia says the 2020+ regular gas 6.6L L8T engine for heavy duty applications has a 10.8 to 1 scr, little less than the L83. The L8T does not use AFM.

The L8T does NOT use Engine Half @$$ / Cylinder Confusion, or Engine Doze-Off.

On top of that, look at what the L8T DOES have, that CAFE-MpG-hamstrung GM V8s don't have:
Iron block - Longer stroke AND longer rod ratio - More displacement - Forged conn-rods - Forged crankshaft with additional central counterweights

To quote Wikipedia:
"... the L8T was designed specifically to assuage the heavy-duty truck market's concerns."
I think the other GM V8s were NOT designed to assuage any of the light-duty truck market's concerns,
because CAFE's concerns over-rode ours.
In other words, GM chose not to prioritize programming the 6.2L V8s to utilize 87 WELL.
That's what all the caveats are for - to blame the end user for 'over-using' 87.

Same goes for the 6L80E.
At least one of the torque converters used by the 6L90E is the same one used by the 6L80E,
yet the 6L90E manages to last tend of thousands of miles longer despite working much harder.
Turns out at least one of the differences (AGAIN) is in the programming of the 6L80E vs the 6L90E.

GM's engineers can do quite a bit. When they choose NOT to do something, I blame GM.

Long story short:
don't stop at disabling Engine Half @$$, have the 6L80E tuned as well to improve the TCC function.

 

[lt1gmc]

I can guarantee anyone running 87 octane has spark knock that they either cannot hear because they don’t know what it sounds like or the ECM is pulling the timing so much to mitigate the knock and the cost of power. Why buy the 6.2L if $5-$10 extra per fill up to keep your engine safe is an issue? Just buy a 5.3L.

Problem is around here its $20-$25 extra a fill-up since premium is $1 additional per gallon. Total marketing ripoff, doesn't cost 25% more to make premium.

 

[Trey Hardy]

The 2017 Denali and Escalade Owners Manuals say

"Fuel (L86 6.2L V8 Engine). Use premium 93 octane unleaded gasoline in your vehicle. Unleaded gasoline with an octane rating as low as 87 may be used, but it will reduce performance and fuel economy."

I know that the engine computer can enrichen the mixture and dial back the spark advance to prevent knock with lower octane fuel. And that most driving is with moderate to low load with these engines anyway which reduces pre-ignition/knock.

My perception is that, yes, 93 octane has more energy per gallon and more knock resistance than 87 octane, but not enough more energy and gas mileage to justify the price premium.

Since I don't plan to operate the engine above 3,000 RPM or at higher loads practically ever, will running 87 octane pose a problem?

If I buy the 2017 with the L86 with 37,000 miles,
I would get the transmission fluid flushed, and,
A tune with the AFM delete, which means the engine would be running at lower manifold pressure in V8 mode with eight cylinders working than it does in V4 mode with four cylinders working. I've seen that on my ScanGauge II with my 2016 L83 by running in M5 which disables the AFM.

What are your thoughts and experience on less than 93 octane?

Even on my high Milage 5.3 in my 07 if I diddnt run premium she would develop a spark knock im like you and couldn’t justify 93 so I would actually put a half bottle of B12 fuel treatment and or marvel mystery oil to remedy this

 

[91RS]

Problem is around here its $20-$25 extra a fill-up since premium is $1 additional per gallon. Total marketing ripoff, doesn't cost 25% more to make premium.

It’s not a marketing ripoff… the higher octane has a purpose.

 

[RST Dana]

It’s not a marketing ripoff… the higher octane has a purpose.

It’s a ripoff. The jobber price going into the delivery tanker at the fuel farm has less than $.25 difference between grades, I.E. $2.75, $3.00 and $3.25. Retailers have been screwing us for years. My dad had a petroleum distributorship years ago.

 

[91RS]

Ok, you do realize everything that’s sold has a markup, right? “Premium” fuel comes with a premium price. It doesn’t matter what the “jobber” price is unless you’re going to open your own oil rig and refinery to save yourself $0.50 a gallon. Do you give away your product or labor? No. Everything has a markup and a value.

What are you going to do about it? Risk engine damage to show “the man” who’s boss? Got another 6.2L getting torn down now with high crankcase pressure and likely a cracked piston.

Again, if buying the correct fuel is a deal breaker, buy a 5.3L where you can safely run 87. Even $20 extra a fill up is worth it not to risk spending $13k on a new engine. Premium vehicles come with premium cost of ownership. I can’t understand why people are surprised about this. Premium areas also have premium pricing.

 

[Marky Dissod]

Ok, you do realize everything that’s sold has a markup, right? “Premium” fuel comes with a premium price.
It doesn’t matter what the “jobber” price is unless you’re going to open your own oil rig and refinery to save yourself $0.50 a gallon.
Do you give away your product or labor? No. Everything has a markup and a value.

What are you going to do about it? Risk engine damage to show “the man” who’s boss?
Got another 6.2L getting torn down now with high crankcase pressure and likely a cracked piston.

Again, if buying the correct fuel is a deal breaker, buy a 5.3L where you can safely run 87.
Even $20 extra a fill up is worth it not to risk spending $13k on a new engine. Premium vehicles come with premium cost of ownership.
I can’t understand why people are surprised about this. Premium areas also have premium pricing.

So, in other words, if you can't intimidate or negotiate your way out of a ripoff, or call bullschidt on price gouging, it's a premium markup?

Then again, the number of people who have replaced every Tahoe / Suburban body panel & light fixture with Escalade accoutrement is likely outnumbered by those who paid the 'premium' for an Escalade by 1000 to 1. (Quite a few Tahoes / Yukons / bubbas indistinguishable from Escalades doing livery in NYC though.)

In any case, the correct way to run 87 in a 6.2L,
is to get an ecm tune written specifically for the purpose of altering the spark timing tables to SAFELY use 87.
Costs less than a 6.0L transplant, you lose about 25 peak horses, but that's the price for SAFELY running 87 in a 6.2L.

All that said, just because no one person can lower the price of 91 or 93 down to something more reasonable, doesn't mean we aren't all being ripped off.