Power loss after cheap gas.

[Bubbles]

That fuse pull thing was for 2010 L99 cars only. They fixed that with a PCM software update in November of 2009 that was loaded into the cars after that. Just FYI.

Refer to PIP4728.

[Bubbles]

I have been running 87 in the camaro since November. It wont harm anything in my opinion and from what I read, besides power output. Doing a fuse pull takes a few seconds and I would recommend after next fill up.

I would suggest running 93 per the owners manuals and the latest run of carbon coated engines I have seen running 87. Just saying.

Ref owners manual page 8-45.

[HumanWiki]

That fuse pull thing was for 2010 L99 cars only. They fixed that with a PCM software update in November of 2009 that was loaded into the cars after that. Just FYI.

Refer to PIP4728.

That paints an entirely new and funny picture of the Fuse Pull Thread on Cam5 then.

[SYCK SS]

The way i look at it is that the fuse pull is a quicker reset method. The computer is capable of doing it by itself but the fuse pull is just immediate.

[SYCK SS]

here this should help.

#PIP4728: Higher Than Expected 0-60 MPH (97 KPH) Acceleration Time - (Nov 4, 2009)


Subject: Higher Than Expected 0-60 MPH (97 KPH) Acceleration Time


Models: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro

with V8 Active Fuel Management Engine (RPO L99)

and 6 Speed Automatic Transmission (RPO MYC)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following diagnosis might be helpful if the vehicle exhibits the symptom(s) described in this PI.

Condition/Concern:
Some customers may complain of higher than expected 0-60 MPH (97 KPH) acceleration times when hot ambient temperatures are present. In some cases, they may report 0-60 times around 7 seconds.

This may be the result of the vehicle being filled with regular grade unleaded gasoline at one time. If the vehicle has been filled with regular unleaded gasoline, the ECM may be compensating for the lower octane by retarding the ignition timing during certain driving conditions.

Recommendation/Instructions:
If SI diagnosis does not isolate the cause of this concern, perform the suggestions below if the customer wants the best performance from their Camaro:

In an area where it is legal to do so, take a snapshot of a 0-60 WOT acceleration event and compare the vehicle speed parameter to the snapshot timer to determine the 0-60 MPH time.
Determine what gasoline octane the customer has been filling the vehicle with.
• 2a. If they have never used anything but premium unleaded with a posted octane of 93 or higher, go to step 3.

• 2b. If they occasionally use regular or mid-grade gasoline, the gasoline must be removed from the tank and it must be refilled with premium fuel of 93 octane or greater. This can be done by advising the customer to switch to premium fuel of 93 octane or greater and returning after a few tanks of premium fuel have been consumed. Or, if immediate results are necessary, drain the fuel tank, refill it with premium fuel of 93 octane or greater, and drive the vehicle at least 15 miles to purge the old fuel out of the fuel rail and lines.

Reprogram the ECM with the latest TIS2Web calibrations to reset the ECM adapts. Normally this reset can also be accomplished by pulling the 2 main ECM fuses (F13R and F20U) shown in the ECM Power, Ground, MIL, and Serial Data Schematic (SI Document # 2209065).
In an area where it is legal to do so, take another snapshot of a 0-60 WOT acceleration event and compare it to the original snapshot to determine if the 0-60 MPH time has increased. If an increase is noted, advise the customer that they should only use premium unleaded gasoline with a posted octane rating of 93 or higher to continue getting the best performance from their Camaro. This is outlined on page 8-45 of the owner's manual. GM Connect Message G_0000037144 was also sent out on 9/2/2009 about filling stock units with premium gasoline.

[Paul98]

I suggest running premium 93 in all v8's. The 87 will cause detonation (spark knock) and unwanted damage to the engine/excessive heat. The air/fuel mixture basically explodes in the cylinder more than once due to the high compression, 93 won't. The v8's higher compression is to gain performance. Another pro of 93 octane is the higher detergent level. It helps cut down on carbon build up and such with close clearances. Its worth the extra $3-$5 a tank full verses the damage it can cause. Also not only damage, but yes the computer is faster than any pc you've ever used. Capable of millions of calculations a second. It sees changes in air fuel mixture at the oygen sensor faster than you can imagine or noise at the knock sensor and adjusts performance based on it. Less octane less performance.
The rate at which it changes for 93 to 87 is faster due to the damage that it causes. Gm and I'm sure other manufacturers who supply a warranty will prevent damage fast. The rate it changes 87 to 93 will be slower as a precaution. Also another trick if it works on 5th gens, not sure, would be to disconnect both battery cables and hold together to discharge capaciters in all the computers for 30 seconds to reset it.

[TonyNo]

Higher compression than what? The V6's have higher compression than the V8's (11.3/11.5 versus 10.4/10.7).

[Paul98]

Direct injection changes the game! I was referring to a regular old fuel injection. A Direct injection benefit is cooling of the air intake charge which suppresses spark knock allowing for higher compression(than an equal sfi motor) and more performance. Also the combustion chamber is designed differently. If the v6 was sfi not sidi then it would be a lower compression ratio guaranteed.

[TonyNo]

Not to threadjack, but, it seems the one problem still with DI is that there is no fuel passing over the valves to keep them clean.

[Paul98]

The issue has been resolved as I'm told. On 2011 and newer gm's the pcv system is redesigned. I asked our field engineer about this a few weeks ago. He said on a sidi the build up on valves is not carbon, it's oil deposits and there is a difference. No way either to clean the deposits while on the car, not even top engine cleaner, need a solvent based product. At work we tried soaking a deposited valve with no results. I believe he also said redesigned rings and valves too on 11 up.

[TonyNo]

Great. So, with the 10's, we're screwed!

[Bubbles]

Great. So, with the 10's, we're screwed!

Nah... We have been piping off the intake manifold creating a chemical cocktail, doing a 2 hour soak and manual removal engine turn and sucking the rest out then fuel system treatment in the rank and presto! No carbon... The PI for the 3.6 is BS and doesn't work. This does. Pays to have a former DVM as the FO director

[steveo9043]

I have been running 87 in the camaro since November. It wont harm anything in my opinion and from what I read, besides power output. Doing a fuse pull takes a few seconds and I would recommend after next fill up.

So the whole "having two fuel tables" is bs? I figured for the few miles I will be putting on the camaro till spring it wouldn't matter. At the same point the few extra dollars wouldn't either. But I just want to clarify the fuel table thing.

[SYCK SS]

The computer has the capability to adjust for different octanes, but it just means the engine wont blow up right away. You will actually get worse gas mileage and cause more harm over time. The tining gets adjust so much to avoid knock that doesn't completely burn the fuel. So it is worth it to run the 91+ and pay a few extra bucks because you don't risk excessive carbon build up or more damage. Also as stated by Paul there are more detergents in 93 octane so it naturally cleans more too.

sent from my galaxy s3. that would explain the errors.

[steveo9043]

The computer has the capability to adjust for different octanes, but it just means the engine wont blow up right away. You will actually get worse gas mileage and cause more harm over time. The tining gets adjust so much to avoid knock that doesn't completely burn the fuel. So it is worth it to run the 91+ and pay a few extra bucks because you don't risk excessive carbon build up or more damage. Also as stated by Paul there are more detergents in 93 octane so it naturally cleans more too.

sent from my galaxy s3. that would explain the errors.

ok next fill up will be back with the expensive stuff!