93 Octane! I like it!

[ChrispyJL]

put what you want in it, seriously it is a $3 difference on fill ups if that., I love the way mine sounds feels with 93 in it.

I have always noticed a few more miles per tank when I use 93

87 is for your friggin lawnmower

Sponsored

 

[TrailTorque]

This can be an issue with the turbo 4 but not the 3.6. The 3.6 can run on pee and vinegar.

Piss and vinegar is what I’m running right now. I can definitely see improvements in throttle response and miles per gallon. Would highly recommend; plus it’s super cheap!

 

[GreyFox]

Piss and vinegar is what I’m running right now. I can definitely see improvements in throttle response and miles per gallon. Would highly recommend; plus it’s super cheap!

But did you throw on that catch can that gives 10mpg more?

 

[Litfuse]

Piss and vinegar is what I’m running right now. I can definitely see improvements in throttle response and miles per gallon. Would highly recommend; plus it’s super cheap!

My wife tells me I’m full of it. I should be able to drive from coast to coast for free!

 

[TrailTorque]

My wife tells me I’m full of it. I should be able to drive from coast to coast for free!

Lol

People ask me all the time about the tank in the back. They think I’m running a meth kit but it’s just a jug of piss..

 

[MojoHanky]

If I had the 2.0L turbo I'd run the 93 for sure, but I'm sticking to 87 in the 3.6L. I don't know enough about the stock tune to say if economy or power would improve in the 3.6L with premium, but the price difference alone will probably cancel any financial benefits.

It seems like turbo vehicles definitely like higher octane. I had a VW GTI that stated in the manual that it will run fine on 87, but will see increased power on 93, and that was true. Real (not butt) dynos proved it. The ECU will advance timing and such to actually benefit from 93. Again, I don't know enough about the tune FCA puts in the JL 3.6L to say if 93 helps, so I won't criticize anyone who chooses to try it. All I know is that 93 costs ~32% more where I live, so I'd need to see a MPG improvement of about 6 mpg to use it, and I highly doubt that's going to happen, so I will stick to 87.

 

[TrailTorque]

But did you throw on that catch can that gives 10mpg more?

Lol absolutely!

 

[word302]

The 3.6L loves higher octane too. Over the past five years and three 3.6L engines in three separate FCA vehicles, I've seen good results in smoothness, power, and fuel efficiency with higher octane fuels. Today's smarter ECUs will adjust VVT and take advantage of whatever you put in the tank.

In short: Just because the Pentastar will run fine on 87, that doesn't mean that it won't run better on 91 or 93.

This is completely false. While the motor will compensate for crappy gas, it's not going to tune up to higher octane. Do a little research, using anything other than quality 87 is a waste of money.

 

[PizzaFreak]

I'm driving a 2 door 3.6, the power difference is day and night. I haven't been tracking mileage I must say. But at 30 cents per gallon more, I'm sticking with it!

 

[word302]

I'm driving a 2 door 3.6, the power difference is day and night. I haven't been tracking mileage I must say. But at 30 cents per gallon more, I'm sticking with it!

LOL. Dynos everywhere and the professionals who use them would argue otherwise.

 

[Litfuse]

I don’t have access to a dyno like I use to, or otherwise I would be happy to test the two octanes on my 3.6.

 

[word302]

I don’t have access to a dyno like I use to, or otherwise I would be happy to test the two octanes on my 3.6.

But I can feeeeeel it. Lol.

 

[WXman]

And the manual is explicitly leaving out the fact that you CAN run higher octane and achieve better efficiency and power, which has been documented by not only myself and other members, but it's been shown on dyno testing also.

This is true of not only the FCA Pentastar, but most modern high compression engines in general.

In fact, it was noted as early as 2012 that the Pentastar was one of the few new high compression V6 engines with a 87 octane suggestion. Most others are recommending the higher octane for better performance. It was clear that FCA did that purely for convenience, and a marketing point in advertising materials.

Surely you don't think it's some kind of magic that a high compression FCA engine is different from a Toyota, GM, etc?

LOL to all the people who "liked" your comment. It's good to know that they can read the owners manual too.

#sheep

 

[jaldeborgh]

I run 87 octane and have zero hesitation, I do feel the engine has a little vibration or harmonic at between 3k and 4k. I may try 93 octane to see if it improves. Total mileage on my 18 JLUR is roughly 6k and the engine seems like it’s been getting smoother since I did my first oil change at 5k miles. My prior SUV was an X3 with the 3L twin turbo straight 6, just an awesome engine so the benchmark is very high. Granted very different vehicles. I’m also not someone who “drives it like I stole it”, been careful during break-in, plus it’s not really a sports car.

 

[word302]

And the manual is explicitly leaving out the fact that you CAN run higher octane and achieve better efficiency and power, which has been documented by not only myself and other members, but it's been shown on dyno testing also.

This is true of not only the FCA Pentastar, but most modern high compression engines in general.

In fact, it was noted as early as 2012 that the Pentastar was one of the few new high compression V6 engines with a 87 octane suggestion. Most others are recommending the higher octane for better performance. It was clear that FCA did that purely for convenience, and a marketing point in advertising materials.

Surely you don't think it's some kind of magic that a high compression FCA engine is different from a Toyota, GM, etc?

LOL to all the people who "liked" your comment. It's good to know that they can read the owners manual too.

#sheep

10.2:1 is not that high for a modern gasoline engine. Honda has been running 10.5:1 on 87 octane for years.

Sponsored