93-octane necessary?

[wjn]

The Raptor Supplement states minimum of 87 octane gas, and from the USA website it looks like the 450hp is made with this octane level:



However, on the Canadian website they state 93 octane should be used for the claimed hp:


So, which one is correct?

I guess the Canadian site, because most of performance vehicles over here (Europe) need 98 RON == 93 octane for their claimed performance. From regulations the need to run lower octane fuel too, but will not make their claimed hp.

 

[757Nomad]

I believe there is an octane sensor in the motor that can regulate boost in order to keep pre-detonation to a minimum in lower octane fuels. I do not know if anyone has ran back to back dyno runs with the different 87, 89, 93 (91 in cali) octanes to prove this out. I've ran both 87 and 93 in the truck and really felt no difference from the seat of the pants. She still got up and went when I needed her to.

 

[EricM]

I don't believe there is any type of fuel sensor. As a matter of fact, I've never heard of any Ford engine with anything like that. Some had the ethanol sensors- but that's it. 99.99% sure it just listens for knock and pulls timing accordingly.

As for the charts- both are correct. 87 is minimum octane. The published numbers were on 93. You won't get the published numbers on 87 octane, but the truck will run just fine.

 

[goblues38]

Engineering Explained just did a test on this.

3.5 ecoboost f150 is one of the test vehicles. It sees 12% if i remember, difference in power between 87 and 93 octane.

Only you can decide. Are you good with a 400 hp ratptor instead of 45 hp to save .50¢ a gallon?

It is a $70k truck. Dont cheap out to save on $15 a tank of gas.

 

[xrocket21]

Two guys above are spot on.

All I have to say, is if you buy a forced induction performance vehicle, and run low octane fuel.... why?

 

[EricM]

All I have to say, is if you buy a forced induction performance vehicle, and run low octane fuel.... why?

I put 87 octane in my SHO. Why?
It's 25% cheaper. It saves me over $500 per year.
I've never seen or heard of anyone having an engine failure in any stock Ford EcoBoost engine due to insufficient octane.
I've ran it on both and cannot tell any difference in performance whatsoever.

 

[xrocket21]

I put 87 octane in my SHO. Why?
It's 25% cheaper. It saves me over $500 per year.
I've never seen or heard of anyone having an engine failure in any stock Ford EcoBoost engine due to insufficient octane.
I've ran it on both and cannot tell any difference in performance whatsoever.

Im not suggesting it would cause damage, Im just saying it doesnt make sense to me to get the vehicle model that makes more horsepower, only to use fuel which reduces horsepower.

And I'm not surprised you can't feel a difference, contrary to popular belief, the butt dyno isnt gonna register a ~15 hp difference.

 

[EricM]

Im not suggesting it would cause damage, Im just saying it doesnt make sense to me to get the vehicle model that makes more horsepower, only to use fuel which reduces horsepower.

Look at it this way. I paid a few grand extra to get a turbocharged engine vs a N/A engine. That incremental money is gone, but the extra HP and TQ it has running on 87 over the base engine is always there and it's a big difference. Optionally, I could spend $500 more a year to get add 4% in power. I choose to save the $500 a year and have 15 less HP during the few times that it's running at WOT.

Maybe that doesn't make sense to you, but it makes all kinds of sense to me. I'll have saved thousands of dollars in fuel that would, for the most part, have been burned just cruising down the highway at 72 MPH. Premium fuel is a total waste of money if the engine can run on 87. IMO, there's NO WAY you'd ever be able to tell your Raptor is running on 87 vs 92, and if that's the case, it's a total waste of money. Maybe, on the hottest days, if you are flogging the hell out of it- maybe you might be able to tell.

 

[xrocket21]

I wouldnt be suprised if the increased fuel economy of higher octane negates the savings of lower octane/lower economy.

If the engine is producing less power, it will have to work harder and use more fuel.

obviously I have no hard numbers to back it up!

 

[17022]

I wouldnt be suprised if the increased fuel economy of higher octane negates the savings of lower octane/lower economy.

If the engine is producing less power, it will have to work harder and use more fuel.

obviously I have no hard numbers to back it up!

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but the higher octane would only be required/beneficial when our forced induction kicks in with higher compression.

87 and 93 would be equivalent when NA (e.g. highway cruising).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk