Different calibration than the Malibu, HHR, etc.... Malibu was made and tuned for your grandma. The slingshot is from Batmans stashWhat I have not heard said isn't it just a Malibu engine do they recommend 91 octane in a Malibu?
Interesting article but I never read a mention of what the compression ratio of the test mule was. Kinda important for a test like this.
I used 91 when I first bought it but switched to 89 when I did the CAT delete to get rid of the fume smell and have been happy with the lack of odor and the performance of the machine ever since.I have never used anything BUT 87 octane in mine. Its at close to 5000 miles now and no issues whatsoever
Had a guy tell me I was nuts tor changing my oil ever 3,000 miles, using Mobile 1 synthetic oil and Wix filters, as that's wasting so much money. He ran cheap tractor-store oil and changed it every 8K to 10,000 miles and his truck ran "great, no problems." He made sure to tell me regularly, and really drive his point home. He was a good guy, just fixated on things the "knew" based on "what he saw."
At 82,000 miles he was having issues with his truck. Compression test showed leaking valves, oil smelled like gas, looking under the valve cover and at the pistons there was carbon buildup everywhere. Since I still wasn't smart enough to know what I was talking about (meaning it wasn't the answer he wanted to hear) he took it to a mechanic. Needless to say all of his bearings were shot and the engine needed a total rebuild. Seems that was the fault of the manufacturer who "didn't build 'em like they used to." Although none of his vehicles lasted past 80,000 miles, and most died kind of early on.
At 132,000 miles I sold my car, which still ran great, I'd just switched to a 3-cylinder stick shift that got around 80MPG and was easy to park; it had okay power--if I was the only one in it, otherwise it was somewhat lethargic. That car ran 165,000 miles before I sold it because at that point in my life I drove a 4x4 pickup truck a lot more, which made it to 125,000 before being sold for a newer 4x4 SUV my old dog liked due to his section having heat, and I like because it has a sun-roof and power windows (still have it). Turns out I'm just the luckiest guy on the planet, who still has no automotive skills and "should run those things into the ground instead of always buying new ones." Guess I burn through too much money. That's okay, being lucky beats being good any day. He retired, and has since owned an awesome Dodge minivan, incredible Honda Civic hatchback, and is now on a Toyota Rav4. The Civic lasted to 95,000 miles, although he had to get in from the passenger side--but it only used a quart of oil a month. (Not bad every 180 miles or so, right? I called it "the mosquito beater.") The rest he didn't get so lucky on. (He finally stopped talking about how that f*cking Dodge hated him.)
On the subject of octane, more is better. The flame-front spreads out and the fuel burns at a more controlled rate with fewer "micro-detonations" that cause engine wear. Less wear is more better.
On the subject of alcohol, that's great for making power in race engines that only run a few hours and then get rebuilt. Not so great in daily drivers, and the MPG sucks, literally.
Those last two statements won't always be the case, improvements in oil formulation and engine design allow oil to run much longer than 3,000 miles between changes, and fuels will change with time too. And I'll probably become a grumpy, crusty old guy before I'm ready.
Nope, and it has 10-1 compression just like the SS motor. I know its said that the SS motor is tuned differently, and I'm not mechanical enough to know what that means, and why it needs 91 octane. With gas prices being way down I usually use the higher octane, but occasionally use 89 when some station thinks the 93 is worth 60 cents more per gal.What I have not heard said isn't it just a Malibu engine do they recommend 91 octane in a Malibu?
I assume it has something to do with Polaris' magnificent engineering decisions. I'm not trying to insult Polaris' engineers, but it seems like their bean-counters have too much influence.We have a 2014 GMC Terrain, 2.4l rated at 182 hp @ 6700 on GM recommended 87 octane. This seems to be the same engine as in the Sling. The Terrain weighs approx 4000 lbs and gets 28 mpg hwy. Why does the Sling require 91 to produce the same hp?