6.2 vs 5.3 and premium gas

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

waynehead99

TYF Newbie
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Posts
28
Reaction score
30
Honestly, I don't really miss the 6.2 or regret opting for the 5.3 and feel its sufficient. Wont be racing off the line at the light or for passing and believe me the passing capability on the 5.3 is pretty good and not lacking anything. If I felt I needed a need for speed I'd have opted for the 392 wrangler or Jeep SRT. Even considered the 392 charger but those are due for a refresh soon and was coming from a jeep already so...Tahoe it is
Agreed... the 5.3 for me is plenty. I didn't by this vehicle to take people off the line... I have other cars/motorcycles for that :).
 

gaffster01

Full Access Member
Joined
May 15, 2021
Posts
141
Reaction score
68
I should have data next week on this. Got the reader and app just haven’t had time to do anything. Will be good comparison as the truck has 91 octane in atm for pulling and will put 87 in after.
 

wsteele

Full Access Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Posts
1,731
Reaction score
2,350
Just a few data points driving my 5.3L flex and recording engine data with my Tech 2. With E10 87 (Costco), driving around town, my engine has knock sensors going off all the time with correlated timing adjustments. I have concluded this is how the engine is tuned, to "ride the knock sensors" for timing adjustments when running 87.

I haven't tried E10 91 yet, but I did run a tank of E85 through (it was actually 80% Ethanol, which has a very high octane rating relative to the E87-E91 range) and the knock sensors did still kick off once in a while, but much less.

I will try running the Costco E10 91 next and maybe post the two snapshots side by side for comparison, but I suspect the knock sensors will be more active with the 91 than they were with the E85.

It would be nice to have one of the guys who have a 6.2L and a Tech 2 post up similar results. I suspect even with 91, the engine will be riding the knock sensors some, if my results with the 5.3L is any indication. I definitely wouldn't ever consider running 87 in the higher compression 6.2L.

The caveat I would offer is my engine is high time, so likely is more prone to knock than a new engine with less build-ups, etc.

My opinion on the 6.2L and the additional cost of Premium is, I wish my engine was a 6.2L.
 

Gibby13

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Posts
224
Reaction score
136
We had a 6.2 in our '11 Escalade and then a 5.3 in our '15. For our '21 Yukon XL Denali we went with the 6.2. The Suburban was a little bit of a turd.

Also we ran premium for the first 3000 miles or so in the '21 and then went with regular for 3000 miles. The MPG gain was around 14% but premium cost 35% more here. We run just cheap regular now as we always have before.


And from the manual you can run as low as 87.

Screenshot_20210910-190123.png
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Posts
7,124
Reaction score
14,364
Location
St. Louis
We had a 6.2 in our '11 Escalade and then a 5.3 in our '15. For our '21 Yukon XL Denali we went with the 6.2. The Suburban was a little bit of a turd.

Also we ran premium for the first 3000 miles or so in the '21 and then went with regular for 3000 miles. The MPG gain was around 14% but premium cost 35% more here. We run just cheap regular now as we always have before.


And from the manual you can run as low as 87.

View attachment 349997
Yes, as the highlighted sentence says, it can be used. Then continue reading after the highlighted part
 

wsteele

Full Access Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Posts
1,731
Reaction score
2,350
We had a 6.2 in our '11 Escalade and then a 5.3 in our '15. For our '21 Yukon XL Denali we went with the 6.2. The Suburban was a little bit of a turd.

Also we ran premium for the first 3000 miles or so in the '21 and then went with regular for 3000 miles. The MPG gain was around 14% but premium cost 35% more here. We run just cheap regular now as we always have before.


And from the manual you can run as low as 87.

View attachment 349997
I would probably be using 87 as well if I planned on sending it back under the lemon law anyway. :)
 

swathdiver

Full Access Member
Joined
May 18, 2017
Posts
19,582
Reaction score
26,265
Location
Treasure Coast, Florida
We had a 6.2 in our '11 Escalade and then a 5.3 in our '15. For our '21 Yukon XL Denali we went with the 6.2. The Suburban was a little bit of a turd.

Also we ran premium for the first 3000 miles or so in the '21 and then went with regular for 3000 miles. The MPG gain was around 14% but premium cost 35% more here. We run just cheap regular now as we always have before.


And from the manual you can run as low as 87.

View attachment 349997
And you too ought to buy a little OBDII adapter and get an app for your phone so you can "see" what you cannot hear, that the engine is knocking and pinging with that swill gasoline you're using.
 

michome

TYF Newbie
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Posts
5
Reaction score
3
Location
Florida
My 2021 Denali has 18560 miles on it now without any engine issues I have been reading about recently. It has only ever seen 91 to 93 octane and gets a can of berryman every second tank.
I change the oil every 6000 miles with mobile 1 or at 10% whatever is first. I have been lucky with my vehicles since buying a denali since 2008. The only TSB I ever did was my 2018 trans flush to get rid of the shudder. The compression is borderline high, 91 octane always but you could get by with 89 with no towing in my opinion. Spending 80 grand for a vehicle takes me out of price per gallon concerns.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
132,079
Posts
1,861,959
Members
96,539
Latest member
black2002tahoe
Top